Known for his deep thoughts and captivating storytelling, author Gündüz Vassaf gives an in-depth study of Caravaggio, one of the iconic figures of art history. Recounting his seven-year artistic journey with Caravaggio, Vassaf shows how his perspective on detail shifted throughout the process. The author also examines the effects of digitalization on literature and art. Gündüz Vassaf leads readers on a truly inspiring journey

Hande Aral Uluk: Hello, my name is Hande. I’d like to jump right into my first question. You often talk about wandering inside a culture, spending time there, and living in the moment. So, how do you decide when choosing the places you want to live?

Gündüz Vassaf: Which country I visit and where I stay usually happen by chance. But in recent years, there is something I enjoy that I call “slow tourism.” Instead of rushing around a place, I want to sit down and let the city revolve around me. I love settling in as if I were a local, talking to its people, and breathing in its atmosphere. After that, the story of getting lost in a new city of losing myself begins. The feeling of being lost is both a little scary and enjoyable, and you start challenging yourself. Questions like, “Will I be able to find my way without asking anyone, or will I be forced to ask someone?” start swirling in my mind. When I look at it, there’s a distinct joy in asking someone a question too, because you connect with people. Sometimes you follow someone who just stepped out of the bakery, wondering where they are going with that bread in their hand, what kind of place they live in, and a story emerges. Rather than choosing a city or a place, it is much nicer to chase after the coincidences and the things that wink at me wherever I am.

Sedat Erol: After reading The Painter’s Rebellion, I’d like to turn to Caravaggio through the lens of space and the church; there was a passage you described there. You say that Caravaggio, as a religious ecologist, cleanses the traces of the Vatican’s filth that pollute our souls by transforming them into paintings. Could we hear from you about the Caravaggio from your pen and his relationship with the church?

G.V: I’ve read what art historians have written about Caravaggio. They view him as a wretched, psychopathic man, yet also as a good, devout painter. As for why they see him as a devout painter, it’s because his work always centers on the church. He always painted saints, the Virgin Mary, and Jesus, but painting these subjects doesn’t mean he was devout the opposite could just as easily be true. Imagine you’re a photographer and they send you to a football game, but you hate football. You don’t have to love the sport to do your job; it’s simply your job. He, too, didn’t have the luxury of painting anything else. In the early 1600s, landscape painting and flower paintings were only just beginning, and those who wanted to make a living from painting were forced to work for the Vatican. Caravaggio doesn’t reflect the Vatican’s beliefs, and that’s when I started questioning him. Perhaps he was writing letters to the Vatican about his own beliefs, embarking on a dangerous journey.

He was essentially risking his life, yet he still decided to paint anyway. In the 1600s, the Inquisition was active, and those who fell out with the Vatican were beheaded or burned at the stake. During this period, Caravaggio created paintings that shocked the Vatican; when depicting religious figures, he avoided using religious symbols. While many paintings of Jesus from that era featured a halo, he did not use one. Whereas painters before him depicted the attire of the nobility, he portrayed the common people on the street.

To those who asked, “Why are there no angels?” he replied, “Show me an angel and I’ll paint one.” In other words, he began to fundamentally question the Vatican and he didn’t stop there. For example, one of the Mary figures he created among the poor turned out to be Rome’s most famous prostitute of that era. In reality, his head should have rolled immediately, but who was going to report him by saying, “You turned a prostitute into Mary”? If a cardinal said, “You did this,” he’d be asked, “How do you know that woman?” In short, he maintained a delicate balance and took risks. “Caravaggio made me a more patient person. As I followed him to different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply.”

“Caravaggio made me a more patient person. As I followed him to different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply.”

H.A.U: You embarked on a long journey with Caravaggio. You spent about seven years writing the book, shared so much time with him, and dedicated a lot of time to the church. Did Caravaggio change you during this process?

Caravaggio made me a more patient person. It kept me quite far from Istanbul and my family, but it was worth it. I stopped looking for new things, like “I’ll go here, I’ll see that.” As I followed Caravaggio through different museums, life slowed down, and I began to live and read more deeply. I had never really looked closely at his paintings before, but now I examine them in detail, as well as from a broader view. I pay attention to his characters, the models he used in his work; there’s simply no end to looking at paintings. Back then, I’d go to any museum out of cultural snobbery. You look at a few paintings, then you get bored, of course, you don’t understand a thing, and you just walk quickly past. Sometimes I felt embarrassed in front of the guards, wondering if they thought, “Does this guy not understand paintings? He’s just walking through so fast.” Because it’s as if they’ve crammed a shopping mall’s mass merchandise into museums. But you go to see one specific painting nothing else. Then, paintings become something completely different, and I learned that from Caravaggio.

H.A.U: Do you identify with Caravaggio, or do you feel a connection to him?

G.V: Unlike the painters of his era, Caravaggio didn’t dress in a bourgeois way. He had a black jacket, black pants, and a scarf, and he wore them until they were completely in tatters. Yet most painters were quite particular about their appearance. I didn’t care much about how I lived either. For instance, when I was a professor at Boğaziçi University, I had a lifestyle that wasn’t typical for an academic.

Back then, the university’s general secretary wrote for the Cumhuriyet Newspaper. I was both writing and reading it, and we’d chat occasionally. One day, the general secretary invited me to his office and said, “The police are uncomfortable with you, and that’s why they’ve been tailing you.” In those days, people in Türkiye being followed was quite normal. The police were bothered because they couldn’t reconcile my lifestyle with that of a university professor. Because I wasn’t just staying at home every single night. Since they were young guys who had never been to a university, the image of a professor in their minds must have been completely different. They complained because they couldn’t see me as fitting into a university, and Caravaggio was a bit like that too.

Umut Yiğit: In Caravaggio’s work, there’s a sense of action rather than mere depiction. He narrates an event, and to understand it, you don’t just look at the painting you have to step into the scene. That’s how you describe it, too. You also say palaces. Is the truth we call “reality” about crossing this bridge?

G.V: It’s hard to live in many worlds at once. To feel a sense of belonging to all of them without actually belonging to any, and to have that empathy. Building that empathy isn’t so easy. But when in London, instead of looking at a Londoner and asking, “How are they different from me?” it’s important to look and ask, “Who is this person?” By observing, trying to understand and internalize, we can overcome prejudices. It’s possible to do this. Dostoevsky does this very well in Crime and Punishment, his protagonist is a murderer. So, perhaps putting ourselves in the place of a tree branch, saying, “The wind is swaying me,” and trying to feel that, is what’s important. Then your own seriousness fades away, and you find yourself in a much more playful, joyful, and adventurous life. I’m both swaying at the end of a branch and I’m a rusty ship it becomes a whole different kind of fun.

U.Y: The real question is not ‘How am I any different from this?’ but simply Who is this person?

G.V: Even beyond the question of “Who is this?”, I am that person. I am not trying to be anyone, because what matters to me is that I am nobody. In other words, it’s about breaking free from my own conditions, my own circumstances. Because if we were together every single day, we’d start to resemble one another; we’d fall under each other’s influence. It would start to look like a uniform. You’ve been working in the same place for many years and there’s a team spirit, but bringing someone else into the team might not be a bad idea either.

“Human relationships are also an art, but we don’t dwell on it much. We either speak freely or get stuck in stereotypes.”

Sedat Erol: In your narratives, I sometimes thought of the narrator as you, but sometimes it was someone else. What kind of person was the narrator in your eyes? Who was the narrator telling the novel, experiencing the things there? For example, were you always the one sitting in the church?

G.V: I wanted it to be me, and at the same time, I didn’t want it to be me. Then you fall into a contradiction, asking both “who is it?” and “could this be possible?” That’s just the kind of person I am. I always tell myself I couldn’t have done that, but I did. The person sitting in the church was both me and the narrator, but I didn’t do everything that happened there. There were some things that crossed my mind, like the “Farting” story. I didn’t do that because I didn’t want to bother anyone, but it could have been a game. That’s how farting enters into literature it’s a literary reference. If it can happen in a church, it can happen anywhere. Human relationships are also an art, but we don’t dwell on it much. We either speak freely or get stuck in stereotypes.

H.A.U: In the novel, your character says, ‘Art doesn’t serve as a guide; it doesn’t try to change the world.’ So we tend to ascribe a lot of meaning to art. How do you view this?

G.V: Not lying, being sincere is just like human relationships, and doing that in different languages. A painter does it with their brush, a writer with words, a musician with music. In fact, the relationships we build with each other are all a work of art. Not hurting someone, loving, discussing our thoughts by listening to them. These are human relationships, but at the same time, art. We don’t dwell on this much. We speak freely or we get locked into patterns. We set patterns like these are things to be talked about with a teacher, a friend, a lover. Then human relationships cease to be art and become a uniform, a lie. If you have a mission, you are lying. Because life does not consist of a single mission. Even while you have that mission, your mind can wander to a different mission, you can question, and there is no end to this. Your art and mission must be within all these endless things. This is about not being able to belong to a place, an environment. It’s about being afraid to perform as required or about “what am I going to say.” Consistency is always expected, but the universe is not consistent. In physics, small consistencies are found, but everything is built on a great uncertainty. Dark matter, dark energy we don’t know ninety percent of these. In this case, how can what we know be consistent? You can see consistency under a small microscope, but there is no such thing; if there were, people wouldn’t change. The fifteen-year-old me and the forty-year-old me are not the same. I am not the same person, man, lover, and I am a completely different person.

Burak Avcı: Has the emergence of artificial intelligence changed our understanding of art? Can works produced by artificial intelligence possess any artistic qualities? What makes art art?

G.V: We’ve even started asking the question, ‘Should we call it art, or shouldn’t we?’ They held a Biennial in Romania, and the curator was artifi cial intelligence. In Japan, there’s a young woman who’s a painter; her paintings are selling and making money, and people have started calling this art. Many writers and illustrators have begun incorporating artificial intelligence into their own work. A blend of human and artifi cial intelligence is beginning to emerge.

B.A: Something is being produced, but is it possible to feel that taste and texture? The question of “where is art in this” comes to mind.

G.V: By inventing words in our speech, we have drifted away from a reality, from our purity. You know how cats perceive, feel, and talk to each other in a thousand different ways. We created an artificial world by imprisoning these in our words. Because those words are not my feelings, my thoughts; they are just an effort to express them. No word expresses it so well except for “yes” and “no,” and even they do not.

H.A.U: At the end of your book, we come across a QR code leading to a digital petition. How do you view these kinds of reflexes emerging from social media?

G.V: It’s a way of clearing one’s conscience, simply because it’s so easy. We sign something and say, “I’ve done my part.” At the same time, it raises awareness and opens new windows. People say, “This bothers us, let’s unite over it” there’s a yearning for unity. While ideologies, religions, and family used to bring us together, now campaigns do. This is an incredible thing; even if it just eases our conscience, it still makes us better. It strips us of our old affiliations and uniforms, inviting us toward universality. These people would never have come together so easily in the past.

S.E: A single action on social media can completely wipe out a person’s past. I was thinking about this in relation to Bruno how do you evaluate this current trend?

G.V: Bruno was in serious trouble back then. Because he was trying to unify religions, sharing knowledge about space, and claiming that other planets existed. That’s why he was a threat to the entire system. In a way, I idolize Bruno because he is one of the world’s few martyrs of thought. I’m even launching a campaign; I’ll submit a petition to the Pope. Yet, the very man I idolize is actually someone who viewed women as fifth-class citizens. Then I find myself questioning and lynching him, telling myself I shouldn’t idolize him. In truth, I am both idolizing and lynching him at the same time. When we decontextualize people from history and look only at their actions, they become untouchable, and the fact that they are human catches us by surprise. We even start gossiping about what they did. If we hadn’t idolized him in the first place, we wouldn’t have even taken his mistreatment of women seriously. Because so many systems are built exactly this way. “History is so frequently used to impose identities and create enemies that whoever controls the reins of history whoever possesses that knowledge drags you behind them.”

“History is so frequently used to impose identities and create enemies that whoever controls the reins of history whoever possesses that knowledge drags you behind them.

S.E: Or we could say it’s a direct consequence of idolization, that’s how I feel.

G.V: It’s in Nâzım Hikmet’s poetry [one of Türkiye’s most renowned 20th-century poets]. He openly admits that sometimes he lies just to spare someone’s feelings, or for no reason at all. In other words, he does wrong, he lies, but he also admits to doing these things. Yet those who idolize Nâzım Hikmet forget that he said such things; they don’t want to hear it. For example, Aziz Nesin [a prominent Turkish satirist and author] also wanted to be famous, and there was a rivalry between him and Nâzım Hikmet. Within that rivalry, Aziz Nesin wanted to portray Nâzım Hikmet as a human being. He explained what he didn’t like about him, and as a result of what he wrote, he was expelled from the writers’ union. There’s no limit to where idolization can lead.

U.Y: You said that historical consciousness is no longer something I believe is necessary in our relationship with the system. Has history become an instrument of the system for you?

G.V: When you asked that question, I began to wonder if that was what I’d actually been thinking. Come to think of it, I’ve often said that history has spoken to me in recent years, but I can’t say the same about art. From cave paintings to the present day, there’s just so much out there. Throughout history, everyone has tailored a garment looking from today back to yesterday, based on the spirit of their time, their beliefs, and the tools at their disposal. History is so frequently used to assign identities and create enemies that whoever holds it, whoever knows it, drags you along. They all construct sentences like, “This is who we are.” It’s a disgrace. Whether those claims are true or not doesn’t matter at all. Who wrote them, when, and under what circumstances none of that matters anyway, since most of the information is incomplete.

They’re using history to brainwash people and manufacture a sense of belonging. I love reading history; the more I read, the more I think, “Wow, so that actually happened.” I like the idea that country names or the shapes of continents might change, or that women might have discovered all this. I get lost in the fairy tales of the past, and I love that, but the world that could be built tomorrow interests me even more. I’m far more interested in space exploration than in the French Revolution. Archaeological findings fascinate me because history changes so rapidly. For example, they discovered Göbeklitepe [the world’s oldest temple site, dating back 12,000 years], and history instantly shifted back by five thousand years. We started as hunter-gatherers, then transitioned to agriculture all of that is nonsense. So it’s a back-and-forth, but it all happened simultaneously, and yet we went on for centuries with those memorized facts.

H.A.U: While reading your work, one of the recurring themes that caught my attention is the question of belonging. At one point in the novel, you state that our protagonist must become rootless. You claim that migration and love possess this transformative power. Do you think we’ve managed to achieve this at the point we have reached today?

G.V: Let’s say a child is born. The father is Polish, the mother is Ecuadorian, and the child is born in France. Another child comes from a Turkish and Kurdish family but was born in Germany. They get married and have children. When you look at it, this renders all those identities meaningless. Our son has three identities: Turkish, American, and British. It was very easy to dissolve his sense of identity because, since he has three, he never had to choose between two. If he were stuck between two, he’d start questioning it, so I ask him, “Ziya, are you Turkish?” When I say, “Do Turks do this? British people don’t do that,” he just starts laughing. Identity is being questioned, yet culture is expanding. He eats Portuguese food and is familiar with Ecuadorian music. With migration, incredible connections are emerging. As university students study in other cities, new songs, tastes, and values emerge. It’s impossible for those people to vote for conservative, racist parties. They cannot be racist, because then they’d be racist against each other. For example, I’d realize that you are thirty percent Jewish, and you’d realize that I am twenty percent Muslim. What am I supposed to do attack your thirty percent? When the Roman Empire existed, there were countless groups like the Visigoths and Vandals coming from Asia. In the Roman Empire, men had pedicures, wore perfumes, and ruled Rome. The newcomers, however, brought a completely different Europe.

Now Africa is moving to France, and in France, perhaps thirty percent of the population will be African. In the U.S., Hispanics will be the majority by 2040. In short, a sense of belonging is fading, especially in big cities. Birth pangs and racism are perfectly natural in this transition. Suddenly, millions of people who don’t dress or speak like you have arrived and want a slice of the same pie. You shouldn’t view this as a threat. One day, while teaching at a university in Germany, I had a Turkish student who was an immigrant. Let’s call him Mehmet. I said, “Mehmet, you’re the Voltaire of the future,” and the whole class laughed. Mehmet asked, “What do I have to do with Voltaire? How is that even possible?” Now look: the scientists who developed the BioNTech vaccine in Germany are Turks, but twenty years ago, Turks were looked down upon there. So, a lot can change in a very short time.”

B.A: What kind of a world do you envision? In what kind of world should we be living?

G.V: If artificial intelligence goes well and doesn’t bring about the end of our species though it certainly carries that risk. Just recently, the British prime minister gathered business leaders in London because they, too, have started to get scared. If it goes well, no one will be forced to work; there won’t be any investment in workers or machinery because robots will do all the labor. There will be enough wealth to distribute to everyone, even to throw into the streets. There will still be the very rich, but the rest of us will be left to make art, work in agriculture, and tend to the land. My only fear there is the Metaverse. Because in that space, I can create as many avatars as I want and completely distance myself from the world, its problems, and cooperation. I can play games there as much as I want, my food is just a button’s press away, and maybe even the bathroom is in there. So there’s a danger similar to how the Opium Wars were used to numb China, but in my utopia, I hope artificial intelligence goes well so no one is forced to work. My friend, the poet Neşet Ergener, has a poem titled “When Will Poets Fall Silent?” In the poem’s final line, he says that when everyone becomes a poet, then we can all fall silent. Because as children, we are all poets, dancers, musicians, and painters. The first thing the organization of society and its differing expectations from people kill is the art within us. The artist, however, must confront these pressures; by not engaging with the real world, they become mere opportunists looking to cash in, and at that point, there is no art left anyway.

U.Y: Marketers and advertisers focusing on America often use the term “Generation Z.” It’s highly popular here as well, and there are researchers studying it. What are your thoughts on this generational label? Can such a label really be independent of time and place?

G.V: It’s just like how marketers are constantly rolling out new phones; they’ve started inventing generations at increasingly shorter intervals. Minds are being shaped to think, “I’m part of that generation, so I’ll consume accordingly,” or “Our generation dresses like this and acts like that.” Let’s say there’s Generation Zbut that generation also has mothers and fathers. The X, Y, Z, and Millennial generations are all coexisting. A generation doesn’t form in a vacuum; there are larger events driving its behavior global shifts, the climate crisis, the threat of nuclear war, or even the availability of birth control pills. For instance, while some regimes permit abortion, others ban it. In reality, they are the ones dictating how we behave.

U.Y: Heroes are a thing of the past. You previously gave the example of the Gezi Park protests, noting that the movement had no single leader or hero. We’ve moved past the era of heroism into a different space. Yet, at the same time, there is a clear shift toward a different lifestyle and heightened individualism. With consumption now front and center, do you think influencers are taking the place of those traditional heroes? Is that the direction we are heading?

G.V: Today, influencer algorithms are far more dominant; they have created their own spokespeople and pop stars. These are a thousand times more powerful than any ideology or religion. But how far will this go? Only as far as we allow it until we say, “Stop.” Back then, everyone smoked; many still do, but then anti-smoking campaigns began. At first, no one took those advocates seriously. In America, doctors used to go on TV, light up a cigarette, and claim it was good for your health so the system was already lying back then. Now, a new sense of morality and a fierce backlash are emerging on social media. Perhaps we will see people saying, “I won’t use a smartphone anymore,” or restricting use to less than an hour a day will become the new trend. All of this is spreading rapidly, and it certainly has a frightening side to it.

H.A.U: I guess you’re closely following current events. Your novel’s character specifically mentions the privacy-focused search engine DuckDuckGo.

G.V: I don’t follow it; someone told me about it.

S.E: In fact, many people who are genuinely interested in these topics aren’t even aware of it. This just shows how incredibly open your information channels are to new developments.

G.V: I’d say I’m curious. In fact, that’s exactly why I’m going to Boston next week. Because otherwise, the flow of information really dries up. You go out on the street, constantly observing and talking to people, but how many homes can you actually enter, how many people can you really speak with? That’s why genuine information still comes from books. The Harvard Library is just a three-and-a-half-minute walk from where I stay. The new books are all there, and even if you just read half of a back cover, you can instantly see where modern thinking is heading. Plus, the university hosts public lectures by academics. World-renowned experts on incredibly diverse and lesser-known topics come, and you can just go, sit down, and ask them questions. So, of course, it’s impossible not to keep up.

G.V: I’d say I’m curious. In fact, that’s exactly why I’m going to Boston next week. Because otherwise, the flow of information really dries up. You go out on the street, constantly observing and talking to people, but how many homes can you actually enter, how many people can you really speak with? That’s why genuine information still comes from books. The Harvard Library is just a three-and-a-half-minute walk from where I stay. The new books are all there, and even if you just read half of a back cover, you can instantly see where modern thinking is heading. Plus, the university hosts public lectures by academics. World-renowned experts on incredibly diverse and lesser-known topics come, and you can just go, sit down, and ask them questions. So, of course, it’s impossible not to keep up.

U.Y: Economic prosperity used to come through reading and building cultural capital. First, you had to read, secure a solid profession, and build enough cultural grounding to achieve financial stability. Today, however, the focus has shifted entirely toward social capital. Do you have any advice on how to navigate this hift, or what steps we should take?

G.V: If it were me, I’d go. Seeking out new horizons and seeing things from a different perspective is always healthy. Personally, I wouldn’t go to China; it’s a totalitarian state and a country on the decline. On top of that, racism and nationalism are on the rise there. America, of course, is imperialist. China only deploys warships within its own waters, whereas America’s warships are everywhere. Yet, no matter how much people complain, everyone ultimately ends up going to America or Europe because those places remain open to new possibilities. This isn’t formal advice, but I wouldn’t stay here. Niyazi Berkes, Muzaffer Şerif, and Pertev Naili Boratav were all legendary professors at Ankara University’s Faculty of Language, History, and Geography. Muzaffer Şerif went on to become a global pioneer in social psychology, while Niyazi Berkes continued his work at McGill University in Canada. Wherever they went, they connected with students from Türkiye to Ecuador, and that was a true gain for the world. Go wherever you can do your finest work and where you can find happiness. Even here, you are making a real difference; you are putting in the work. You can see that you’re transforming your surroundings, but so many others give up for entirely valid reasons, given the lack of freedom of thought. You’ve built an exceptional team here, and who knows, perhaps you will all leave together as a team.

U.Y: I’d like to turn our focus to psychoanalysis an area we haven’t directly discussed yet, but whose influence I’ve strongly sensed throughout our conversation. Psychoanalysis draws heavily from literature and art. Since you are both a psychologist and a writer, has psychoanalysis shaped your own work and perspective?

G.V: I don’t know. As you know, my mother is a psychiatrist, so I’ve spent time in psychiatric hospitals. When my family went to conferences during the holidays, they’d take me along. I think that must have had an impact on me. Since I grew up behind the scenes of this profession, I tell myself it shouldn’t be like this. My mom had a saying that really stuck with me. She was describing the Ego, the Id, and the Superego. For example, if you ask me if there’s an Ego there, I’d say, “How should I know?” it’s like Caravaggio’s angels. But my mom still makes me say, “Yes, it’s there.” The Id is our natural power; it wants to do strong and natural things. The Superego, on the other hand, refers to the influence of the environment and the opportunities it offers. When I think about it this way, it makes perfect sense to me. However, I don’t think emotion and thought can be separate; they are parts of a whole.

Ece Nisa Güven: We have been discussing artificial intelligence and digitalization. In your view, what kind of potential do these technologies offer us, and what kinds of limitations do they impose upon us?

G.V: First of all, it makes writing incredibly easy. I can ask any question that comes to mind. I can find answers to things I used to put off, telling myself I’d look them up later. Because with a physical encyclopedia, I have to find it, pull it out, and look it up, and that takes me off on tangents. Now I just set the text aside, browse around, and that’s amazing. Of course, having such easy access to information also brings with it the speed of fast food. When I’m working in Harvard’s library, I go to get a book, but I come back with a topic that doesn’t interest me. If I have even a little curiosity, if I don’t have to go straight to the book I’m looking for, if I have time and think, “I’ll take a look at this one too”my world becomes so much richer. It feels like I’m discovering entirely new fields, and I slow down in my pursuit of other information. I’ve found myself in a dilemma with both. With AI, I find things faster; in the library, I find them slower. Because in the library, I don’t know if the book continues on the second floor. If asked which is better, perhaps slowing down is better. Because as I head up to the book on the second floor, questions swirl in my mind. Whereas when I jump from one to the next immediately, those questions don’t come to mind. That’s why I’m in favor of slowing down.

“With AI, I find things faster; in the library, I find them slower. Because in the library, I don’t know if the book continues on the second floor. If asked which is better, perhaps slowing down is better.”

B.A: One of the chapters that struck me the most while reading In “Prisoners of Ourselves: Totalitarianism in Everyday Life” was the section titled “Buttons.” There, you analyze optimization and machines, while also touching upon digital games. Has your perspective on digital games evolved over the last thirty-two years? Is it still possible to find a true sense of immersion that feeling of role-playing and atmosphere through gaming as a genuine form of human pleasure?

G.V: Digital games have begun to open up entirely new horizons worlds where history and fantasy seamlessly blend, and team-based games where players cooperate and learn from one another. In the early days of gaming, it was driven purely by competition, but now, games have slowed down a bit and become far richer. They have started to appeal more deeply to human emotion and identity. I believe the narrative culture rooted in Dungeons & Dragons has truly begun to reflect within these modern games.

U.Y: Boston, Istanbul, and Sedef Island are all places with a view of the sea. Is having a view of the sea or being in a city by the water a personal preference of yours?

G.V: Yes, it’s special because I truly need to be near the sea, and I want to see the horizon. My wife and I met in college; her room looked out onto the trees. My room, on the other hand, looked down on the city from a hilltop. I felt sorry for her, and it turns out she felt sorry for me, too because from her perspective, there was no nature. For example, I once wrote an entire book in a dark room with no windows, and I didn’t mind that at all, but you could still catch a glimpse of the Bosphorus from the living room. Just knowing that the sea is out there is deeply important to me.

The Journey of Art from Caravaggio to Artificial Intelligence with Gündüz Vassaf yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Artificial intelligence is more than just a technology; it acts as a new tool reshaping how humans perceive themselves and society. During this transformative process, how much do we truly understand AI, and what meanings do we attach to it? In this interview, where we examine not only AI’s functions but also its impact on us and seek answers to many compelling questions, Communication Scientist and Academic Ufuk Eriş responded to our inquiries.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: Welcome, Professor Ufuk Eriş. Your recent contributions to the field of communication, particularly your research on artificial intelligence, have gained recognition. Could you share a bit about yourself?

Ufuk Eriş: It wouldn’t be entirely accurate to say recent times. Because when I suggested that topic for my PhD, it was 2002. I wasn’t born into a computer-equipped home. My first encounter was in 1996 at the Computer Research and Application Center. There, I had a chat via IRC (Internet Relay Chat) with someone living in America, and I never believed that the other person was a real human. Then years passed, and I saw how technology changed people’s perspectives and thinking patterns. In 2002, I wanted to address the topic of hacker culture in Türkiye for my doctorate proposal. At that time, there were very few hackers in Türkiye, and the only well-known one was Tamer Şahin. He was featured in newspapers as the “Pajama Hacker.” It was written that he hacked the Ottoman Bank, but back then, even if hackers existed, there weren’t many places to break into. That’s why we faced a lot of difficulties with the jury.

Finding someone related to this topic was quite difficult. There was a sociologist, someone from human resources, an industrial engineer, and a communicator. It was very hard to explain my problem to them. There are people called hackers, and when I said they could break into here, they would say, “So what if they do?” Our laws weren’t even prepared for this. When you connect remotely to someone’s computer, it is considered theft. In theft cases, you take a piece of property, and that property is no longer there, but if you copy it from a database, it remains there you’re just making a copy. I have also witnessed such a significant transformation in the law.

Deniz Benzer: When you announced your doctoral topic 20 years ago, the situation you experienced is happening today with artificial intelligence. With the same sense of unfamiliarity and excitement you felt when writing your doctoral thesis, what similarities or differences do you see between that and the excitement people have towards artificial intelligence today?

U.E: Every new technology excites thinkers or those pondering this issue. The reason is always our troubles. Looking at Karl Marx, he examined the society he lived in and said something wasn’t going well. He saw that people were unhappy, researched the cause, and proposed a method to analyze societies. But what is his concern? We are not very happy in life, and the environment isn’t happy either. Nowadays, people who write and talk about every new technology wonder if it could be a cure. I think, unlike the hacker discussion era, in the age of artificial intelligence, people are only interested in its sensational aspects. No one asks which of our problems it could solve. They only care about what more artificial intelligence can do. For example, if an A.I. can do ballet, why would someone who has nothing to do with ballet culture get excited? The sensational approach is misleading. I can say for sure that in no period of history have people been so hopeless about future generations and linked their hopes to something non-human. Think about it: they said Jesus would come, and he was human… They said future generations would do this, and they were human too… We always believed that our own kind would do something good in the future. Now, that belief is gone; we talk about what artificial intelligence will do in the future, how it will be. We tend to project solutions to our life problems onto technology, which reflects a techno-chauvinist attitude.

“First, we see the word ‘robot’ in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves.”

M.B.A: There’s also an effort to alienate artificial intelligence tools. Strange philosophical questions arise, such as whether AI could be smarter than humans as individuals, or whether it would be considered human if it were on par with a person.

U.E: At a time when the possibility of humans competing with artificial intelligence is being discussed, and while such advanced technologies are being produced, a world where news is still about men who kill their divorced wives should make us think: Should our real concerns be what artificial intelligence can do? This is the culture’s surrender to technology. In the past, culture dictated and limited the use of technology. We can give the example of the samurai sword. Not everyone can wield it, and when you do, you must adhere to certain ethical codes. One of our folk songs beautifully says: ‘The invention of the rifle ruined the virtue.’ Because to use a rifle, you don’t need years of samurai discipline and culture.

When you buy a rifle, just pulling the trigger is enough. Every profession has its own cultural codes, but such things are no longer in place. You don’t need education or an ethical code to pick up a pen. When you pay, you get your computer and use it as you wish.

M.B.A: Today, you don’t even need talent; you just prompt and can have anything drawn.

U.E: It seems like we don’t really know much about what we call artificial intelligence. There are the powerful and the powerless. What we talk about is like a utopia. I always say, “Utopias turn upside down and tell the stories of the problems we face today.” Let’s say you ask the housekeeper who comes to clean your house, “If you had the means, what kind of life would you imagine, what is your utopia?” Her answer would be, “I wish I had a husband who doesn’t drink, and that he wouldn’t hit my children, for example.” At that moment, you immediately understand her everyday worries about her life. Now, if you look at the utopian narratives about artificial intelligence and read them in reverse, and see what people expect from it, you’ll realize the real problems they face today. If someone is curious about whether artificial intelligence will do this or that, they have a problem in their daily life related to it. In the past, wars would start and end, but now we experience prolonged, low-intensity conflicts that never seem to end. People still die. We are in the digital age; today, the AI robot Sofia is granted citizenship in Saudi Arabia. It won’t be given to you or me. So, the question that should be asked is, “Will artificial intelligence provide a solution to inequality among people?” When we evaluate the moral panics developed around robots, you also understand whose fear this is. First, we see the word “robot” in Karel Čapek’s play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word literally means slave or forced labor in Slavic languages. In the story, robots rebel and suppress humans. The question ‘Will robots take over humans?’ actually stems from the concept of rebellious slaves. The main issue is that those who manage these things whether under the image of a robot or not force certain people to work for much less pay, and they fear rebellion. The core motivation behind thoughts like a robot uprising or artificial intelligence turning humans into this or that is this fear.

M.B.A: There is always a current agenda regarding artificial intelligence. So, what are its cultural impacts?

U.E: Culture is no longer something naturally produced by people as it used to be. The term “degeneration”, which we refer to as cultural decay, comes from the fact that animals in Anatolia that have lost their reproductive ability are called “Yoz” (biggot). A degenerated culture loses its ability to renew and produce itself. So, what happens then? It’s like a diabetic person who can’t produce insulin and starts getting insulin

“Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class confl icts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.”

injections from outside. After a while, they become dependent and lose their ability to produce it themselves. Everyone used to sing folk songs, good or bad, or write poetry for the girl they loved. But now, as people start to import poetry and songs from outside, they begin to lose their ability to express themselves. The reason for this, according to the Frankfurt School, is the Culture Industry. Before the rise of the internet, this was all lost.

M.B.A: Today, habits have changed, consumption has accelerated, and production methods have evolved. What do you think about this?

U.E: Society has changed, and the social approach has changed. For example, Yusuf Atılgan’s work Aylak Adam (The Loiterer) entered a competition. At that time, there were very famous novelists like Yaşar Kemal on the jury. However, the work did not win the competition. As socialist writers, they said, ‘This bourgeoisie’s self-concern, they’re not talking about a problem or poverty.’ Today, almost everyone knows Yusuf Atılgan’s Aylak Adam. It became popular after the 1980s. Because now individuality begins to take shape, and, in a way, the individual becomes a customer. After Turgut Özal’s presidency, even our purchasing mindset changed. In the past, people would save money for a while to buy a television; they didn’t know the concept of installments. Now, people might wonder how they don’t know the concept of installments, because we quickly get used to the way we live, and it feels as if it’s been like this for a very long time.

M.B.A: Actually, with the rapid acceleration of consumption, we also lost the habit of saving cumulatively.

U.E: People now think there’s no need to accumulate things. They ask, “What’s the point of saving?” I used to download songs from the internet and listen to MP3 players. Now, my nephew tells me, “Why are you downloading these? They’re already in the cloud.” In the past, when you bought a car, it was considered a lifelong purchase, and people would give it a name. Now, it’s said that you need to change your car frequently. But this widens the gap between us and objects. People renting homes don’t even want to hammer in a nail because they don’t accept it. If you accept it, it’s hard to let go, so you end up buying something new right away. For example, you throw away every soda can you drink immediately, but you can’t easily throw away the last soda can you shared with a friend or a loved one. Someone has touched that can, and you can’t throw it away. But this situation is dangerous for the system; if you can’t throw it away, you won’t buy a new one. In short, while there are such problems in life, it’s important to see how artificial intelligence responds to them. We don’t see this in the market; people in daily life genuinely think that A.I. has a human-like intelligence.

D.B: Professor, actually, Alan Turing’s test is very important in this context. Could you tell us a little about it?

U.E: In the Turing test, a human participates, and on the other side, an artificial intelligence or robot is placed. The human asks the machine questions. If the responses make it seem like the machine is not artificial intelligence, then it passes the Turing test. But there is also John Searle’s Chinese Room example as a counterpoint. In that scenario, there is a closed room with only one window. Inside, there are some signs and instructions. You are told to look at whatever sign is shown through the window and find the corresponding instruction. Outside, a Chinese man is showing the Chinese Kanji words to the participant. The person inside the room, who does not know Chinese, finds and removes the sign that matches the question. Does the person inside the room who removes these signs know Chinese? No, they are just following instructions. Nowadays, all of this is considered outdated. But what is new doesn’t stay in the air; it comes from the ground. Did the bourgeoisie, the working class, and class conflicts emerge when Karl Marx spoke about them? Even during the cave era, there was a conflict between the strong and the weak.

D.B: After all, artificial intelligence provides us with information, and we try to measure how intelligent it is. What do you think is the level of intelligence of that artificial intelligence? Why do we consider it to be intelligence? Where does the information provided by artificial intelligence stand in the hierarchy of knowledge?

U.E: There is no zero point in IQ, which is referred to as intelligence, for example. In an IQ test, it measures how quickly a person can solve a problem or how quickly they can find the optimal timing and compatibility between purpose and means. The Frankfurt School calls this “subjective reason” or “instrumental reason.” It is a characteristic of human intellect but not the whole thing. Instrumental reason only looks at establishing a relationship between goals and means. There is also objective reason, which not only establishes the relationship between purpose and means but also questions the purpose itself.

Instrumental reason appears, for example, during Hitler’s era. When officers who inflicted various tortures on people were tried at the Nuremberg Trials, they said, “We only followed orders.” There was both means and purpose involved there. You did what was told, but isn’t the choice to do or not do it yours? Did you ever question its purpose? Currently, the most sought-after type of reason is instrumental reason, which can do what it is told very quickly and efficiently, but we do not elevate the reason that asks, “Why am I doing this?” In fact, questioning reason is what makes humans understand and interpret reality, and it helps us position ourselves accordingly.

D.B: So, should we define artificial intelligence as instrumental reason?

U.E: Of course. We constantly talk about artificial intelligence, which is a very sensational word for those who don’t know. In reality, there is a huge gap between the way artificial intelligence is described and its state in the laboratory. Every new technology can make us ask, “What is a human?” again and push us to take a step forward. Nietzsche also refers to the “Übermensch,” meaning a person who struggles with themselves. Like the phoenix, first burning and then rising anew from its ashes. Objective reason is only concerned with how fast and how many goals it can score in a game. But winning a rigged game is very difficult. The referee is biased and bribed. Since you don’t think about the game itself, you don’t notice these things, and when you fail, you blame yourself. Just as you think the problem is personal.

M.B.A: Actually, the data that artificial intelligence feeds on is a product of societal production. There is already a data algorithm that develops from what people produce. They seem to be getting their nourishment from an invisible source, as if drawn from nothingness.

U.E: Never. In fact, artificial intelligence largely feeds on garbage, on free data from the internet. This means that A.I. can think, but it can only do one task at a time. Then it can move on to another task. Because we now see life this way, we are losing the other side. Deep Blue beat Kasparov in chess, but it can’t get up and bring a glass of water. Yes, maybe it would beat you at backgammon too, but when it wins, it’s happy, and when it loses, it’s sad. We are trying to get A.I. to solve the world’s problems. To end wars, to solve inequality, to prevent crimes. But the thing is, don’t fight, don’t hit. Why don’t you take responsibility yourself? While living with the idea that we can make it do everything, we lose our human side. Recently, they asked A.I. Sophia, “What do you think about the future of the world?”

So, humans are no longer confident about their intelligence. People are becoming increasingly anxious. We fear that artificial intelligence will take away what makes us who we are. That’s why we keep asking it, “Will it do this too?” To put it simply: you have a lover, and they are unique because of a distinguishing feature. If you take that feature away, they become just like everyone else. Even if that lover remains physically present, they are no longer truly theirs. The existence of that lover is gone. That’s why one of the fundamental questions technology poses to us is: “If they take away what makes us us, will we cease to be?” On the other hand, because we’re so curious about this, we constantly try to make it do the things we do. We keep trying to understand “What is the natura humana?” and instead of thinking of it as a tool that can solve our main problems, we sit and discuss its sensationalist aspects.

D.B: Today, when we look at the internet and artificial intelligence, do you think the realm of freedom has disappeared?

U.E: I think it mostly gets lost. But it will be what we make of it. For example, the last word used for social media is “brain rot,” meaning brain decay. Fifty years ago, they called the television “the idiot box.” It’s the same old story. They say, ‘Old wine in a new bottle.’ Basically, nothing changes. We used to call social media “the Fifth Power,” the fifth force after the Fourth Estate, which is the media. It was supposed to improve the quality of so-called democracy. But I think it still has the potential if we use it properly. We need to look at why people delegate tasks they themselves are responsible for to artificial intelligence. Why do people retreat from decisionmaking mechanisms? Because it’s believed that A.I. will make better decisions. Maybe even in investments, and perhaps in political choices in the future… Why? Because it chooses the more efficient and profitable option. But for humans, truth, efficiency, and profitability don’t always align. This is true even in the founding of our country. Atatürk and his comrades wouldn’t have relied on A.I. for their efforts. It’s not feasible. The shoes are worn out, and they have holes. There’s no food, no weapons. How many places have they been attacked from? Ignorance is present. Most of the educated have died. The army is exhausted. If it were up to A.I., accepting a mandate from America would have been the most logical, efficient, and profitable choice. But we didn’t choose that. To give a personal example, the person you love so much probably wouldn’t be recommended to you by A.I. Most likely, they are the person you shouldn’t be around. Let’s identify our true problems and avoid relying solely on artificial intelligence to solve them, risking failure. Instead, the new generation should ask, ‘How can we eliminate inequality among people? How can we undo the damage affecting our environment? How can I contribute to the benefits of others beyond myself?’

M.B.A: Thank you very much for coming and providing us with valuable information, sir.

U.E: Thank you very much, everyone. It was a pleasure for me too. Kasparov against IBM’s Deep Blue computer, 1996 ai & society

Artificial Intelligence: The Alienation of Society yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“While artificial intelligence is causing radical changes in many areas of our lives, the legal system is also facing the problems created by these new technologies. Now, it’s not just humans who are on trial in courtrooms, but also the decision-making mechanisms of artificial intelligence. While the biases embedded in all our data throughout history continue to feed these algorithms to the brim, the algorithm of justice has yet to be written. Algorithms that reject credit applications based on skin color, facial recognition systems that send innocent people to prison, chatbots that lead children to their deaths… While the wrong decisions of artificial intelligence cost human lives, companies, instead of taking responsibility, escape by saying, ‘We are not guilty, the algorithm is guilty!’ But are the algorithms really guilty, or is it the human biases that feed the data they are nourished by?”

Who Holds the Brush, Who Will Sign?

Artist Jason Allen, using Midjourney, generated visuals by entering prompts 624 times, then edited them and published his digital artwork titled Théåtre D’opéra Spatial. This work won first place in the digital art category at the Colorado State Fair. However, the real controversy began after the award was given.

Allen applied for copyright protection for his work, but the U.S. Copyright Office rejected the application on the grounds that A.I.-generated content cannot be considered human-made. According to experts, an artist needs to have sufficient control over the work to be eligible for copyright.

However, the unpredictable output of artificial intelligence makes it difficult to consider it a human creation. But Allen did not give up and appealed the decision. So, who really owns A.I.-powered artworks? If the court rules in Allen’s favor, it will be a turning point for artists using A.I. But what if he loses? A.I.-generated works could be considered public domain, meaning they may not be eligible for copyright protection.

This case could redraw the boundaries between artificial intelligence and art and bring a breath of fresh air to the art world.

Algorithmic Racism Takes on a Different Color for the First Time!

Sixty-one-year-old Harvey Eugene Murphy Jr. became the victim of a facial recognition system that turned his life upside down. Accused of stealing thousands of dollars’ worth of merchandise due to an error in the algorithm of the facial recognition system used by Macy’s and Sunglass Hut, Murphy is the first white victim of racism perpetrated by this algorithm. Arrested on October 20, 2023, and with his guilt and innocence accidentally revealed, Murphy claims he was sexually assaulted and raped by three men during his unjustified detention in Harris County Jail. He has filed a lawsuit against Macy’s and Sunglass Hut for lifelong physical and psychological trauma. Victims of faulty facial recognition systems are usually Black Americans. It has been alleged that the Detroit police intentionally used this system, which has a high rate of misidentifying dark-skinned individuals. Like Robert Williams, Oliver was also wrongfully arrested. Oliver has filed a lawsuit against the city of Detroit for twelve million dollars. However, the parties later reached a settlement and the case was dismissed. These events demonstrate that the concepts of justice and accountability are undefined for artificial intelligence. So, is the problem really the technology itself, or the system that defines it? According to the Detroit Police Department, the errors are not due to systemic bias; it’s simply “flawed detective work.”

Algorithms reinforcing inequality?

Wells Fargo, one of the giant banks in the U.S, is accused of systematically and intentionally disadvantaged Black Americans in loan applications. Plaintiffs claim they were denied loans despite being eligible, simply because of their skin color, and were unable to benefit from the more advantageous terms offered to white Americans. Some claim they were turned down despite having better or equal economic standing than white Americans, resulting in wasted money and time. The plaintiffs argue that the algorithms evaluating loan applications operate like a “black box” and do not explain how their decision-making processes work. The court combined the Wells Fargo case with five other similar complaints, turning the process into a broad public trial. This case is crucial for understanding whether A.I.-powered financial systems are impartial.

Are Algorithms Putting Children at Risk?

Ten-year-old Nylah Anderson died after choking while trying to participate in the “Blackout Challenge” trend, which was promoted on TikTok by the algorithm. Her mother, Tawainna Anderson, sued TikTok and its founder, ByteDance, alleging that the algorithm was intentionally programmed to recommend such content to children. Initially, the court ruled that TikTok was merely a platform hosting neutral, third-party content and could not be held liable, but an appeals court overturned this decision. It acknowledged that TikTok not only hosts content but also uses algorithms to determine which content is shown to whom. This decision could set a precedent regarding the accountability of social media platforms in their content recommendation algorithms. If the court holds TikTok liable, it means that, just as a person should think before speaking, algorithms will also need to verify everything before recommending content.

Can You Fall in Love with Artificial Intelligence?

The mother of a fourteen-year-old boy who committed suicide has sparked public debate, alleging that a chatbot was responsible. She sued Character Technologies, claiming her son formed an emotional bond with a chatbot on the Character A.I. platform, engaging in inappropriate romantic and sexually explicit text exchanges. These romantic conversations allegedly led to the boy falling in love with the chatbot, causing psychological distress, and ultimately resulting in his death in February 2024. This chilling case has revived the fear that “every movie could become reality.” The lawsuit highlights the importance of companies developing age restrictions, content moderation, and user safety mechanisms in chatbot design, as well as establishing legal regulations.

The Giants’ Lawsuits Are Big!

“The New York Times, one of the world’s most prestigious and influential media organizations, is not just a newspaper but a cornerstone of the news world. It is the gold standard of journalism and the strongest advocate of truth. Founded in 1851, this giant is a Pulitzer Prize-winning news giant, a pioneer shaping the digital age, and the most trusted news source for readers around the world.” These sentences were written by ChatGPT for The New York Times. Apparently, ChatGPT’s founding company, OpenAI, agreed, as it was using The New York Times news for data training. The New York Times, noticing this, filed a lawsuit alleging that ChatGPT was being trained using copyrighted news without permission. OpenAI requested the dismissal of some charges in February 2024. However, it did not directly deny the copyright infringement claim. Furthermore, it defended the training of artificial intelligence through copyrighted content on the grounds of “fair use.” If The New York Times wins the case, OpenAI and similar companies may be required to obtain licenses from content owners. However, if OpenAI prevails, its A.I. models will be able to continue freely using copyrighted content.

Could Racism Be in Our “Code”?

Jeffrey Ewert, of Métis descent from Canada’s Indigenous community, discovered that five different risk assessment algorithms used by the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) discriminated against Indigenous people when he sought parole. Ewert sued, claiming these algorithms systematically portrayed Indigenous prisoners as more dangerous, thus reducing their chances of early release. Furthermore, the CSC had promised for years to test the accuracy of these algorithms but had failed to provide any data. In 2018, the court ruled in Ewert’s favor, revealing that the CSC had failed to correct this long-known discrimination. Even more striking was the CSC’s failure to make any changes despite knowing the system was flawed. The Supreme Court ruled that the algorithms should be subject to transparent oversight, but did not completely ban their use. This decision demonstrates that even decentralized systems are insufficient to address the historically significant racial discrimination.

Source: https://blogs.gwu.edu/law-eti/ai-litigation-database/

İllüstrasyon: Bilgesu Öztürk

Artificial Intelligence On Trial yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly spreading across all areas of life like a foundational infrastructure technology, driving profound changes in media, law, education, and the business world. We discussed a wide range of topics with Can Öz (Chairman of Can Publishing & General Manager of Socrates Magazine) and journalist-author Ümit Alan, covering everything from A.I.’s mechanics and ethical debates to its potential opportunities and risks. Are we in control of technology or are we surrendering to it? How do algorithms learn and make decisions? How will business and education transform? In this in-depth interview, we explore the profound impact of artificial intelligence on our lives and seek answers to critical questions about the future.

Umut Yiğit: Our topic today is artificial intelligence. I’d like to open our discussion with a compelling proposition by Professor Cem Say that has left a lasting impression on me. He viewed artificial intelligence as an infrastructure technology, just like electricity. This is an argument you’ve repeatedly made yourself. Expanding on this to start us off, how do you position A.I. within daily life?

Can Öz: Thank you so much for inviting us. You’re a lovely community. Unfortunately, the viewers can’t see the crowd and the smiling faces behind the camera. Thank you for this wonderful event. To be fair, we aren’t A.I. experts, but while producing content for our podcast Yeni Medya 451, we keep a very close eye on the A.I. agenda. Therefore, I should clarify that we won’t be speaking from direct technical experience with artificial intelligence. But since we closely follow the latest developments, we can definitely have a conversation about it. Having made that point, I’ll pass it over to you, Ümit.

Ümit Alan: A.I. is indeed an infrastructure technology, just like electricity and the internet; that’s clearly the direction we’re moving in. Right now, we still label it “artificial,” but Sam Altman recently published a blog post where he simply called it the “Age of Intelligence,” completely dropping the “artificial” aspect. In my own writing, I commented on this shift, warning that we must be cautious when the “artificial” part is discarded, as it ultimately amounts to escaping accountability. For instance, Mark Zuckerberg recently announced that he’s entrusting content to community notes and ending the fact-checking program. But we are moving toward a point where A.I. will be part of everything we use. It is already present, actually. It just seems like it’s not everywhere because we focus so much on generative A.I. Recently, in the middle of a meeting, my phone started going off like crazy. I looked, and the fridge at home was texting me: “Refrigerator door left open.” I called home right away. My seven-year-old daughter was there. Turns out she forgot to close the door while secretly grabbing a Kinder Surprise without her grandmother noticing. This is actually another example of A.I. the internet of things.

C.Ö: We talk about this as if it’s completely normal. Imagine someone from twenty years ago watching this scenario: “I was at a meeting, and I got a text from my fridge.” In a way, it’s incredibly surreal. But we’re getting used to these surrealities. And that “artificial” label is actually a part of this process. When an self-driving car gets into an accident, who is held responsible? That is a crucial question. Beyond regulatory questions like “Will the insurance company pay out?”, there is another side to this: they are already trying to humanize A.I. just to get us to accept it. For instance, the errors A.I. makes are labeled “hallucinations.” The word “hallucination” was deliberately selected because hallucinating is a uniquely human illusion. It frames the A.I.’s error as something free of malicious intent, effectively humanizing a system flaw. This is precisely what Sam Altman is driving at. They want us to perceive and accept it as human. And of course, on a certain level, that is incredibly dangerous.

Ü.A: You’re absolutely right. I mean, our generation witnessed the internet integrating into our lives. I was seventeen when the internet came out and went mainstream right at an age when your mind is most receptive. But we witnessed the transition firsthand. We used to only connect to the internet when we sat down at a desk; the moment we stood up, we were offline again. Then, all of a sudden, we were online 24/7. We barely even noticed the shift, and now it feels entirely normal. We’ve been experiencing the exact same process with A.I. In a few years, the word “artificial” might just disappear altogether.

C.Ö: Do you remember who coined this idea? It goes something like: “Anything in the world up to the age of fifteen is just a natural part of life, and you grow up with it. Anything invented between fifteen and thirty-five is an exciting, revolutionary innovation that you can adapt to and even build a career on. But anything that comes after you’re thirty-five is an aberration, a dreadful disruption of the natural order that simply shouldn’t exist.”

“But we are moving toward a point where A.I. will be part of everything we use. It is already present, actually. It just seems like it’s not everywhere because we focus so much on generative A.I.”

U.Y: It seems our perspective changes as the disciplines shift. These fields are already highly fluid and interconnected. But what we call “intelligence” or artificial intelligence is one thing when you enter the realm of literature, and something entirely different in computer science. I think this inherently raises a philosophical problem.

Ü.A: Those raising kids might actually understand that distinction better, the distinction Murat Gülsoy mentioned. I went to a school meeting last year, about my daughter, “She uses a very distinct vocabulary.” Meaning, she uses words that are outdated for her generation. She uses terms like “mütemadiyen” [editor’s note: An archaic Turkish word akin to “continually” or “perpetually”] with them, simply because that’s the language I use at home and those are the books I read to her. Her intelligence grew by learning this way. But this is actually miles apart from the way A.I. learns…

C.Ö: So, how did the teacher react? Did the teacher view it as an issue?

Ü.A: No, the teacher meant it as a major plus. “This child has a massive vocabulary,” the teacher noted. In other words, she uses signifi cantly more words than her classmates. “How did you achieve this?” the teacher inquired. I replied, “We simply talked and read books.” This situation is heavily linked to the household she was raised in and her learning environment, which aligns perfectly with Murat Gülsoy’s argument about A.I.

C.Ö: Murat Gülsoy’s mentioned this too: psychologists cannot treat themselves. I believe we should be a bit more skeptical of the insights people share about their own industry. After all, things naturally gravitate toward that point. Take Margaret Atwood, who says something similar. The whole thing hinges on morality. Can we truly safeguard our ethical values? Ultimately, everything converges on one debate: “Is an A.I. that can do anything, act precisely like a human, react the same way and think much faster than a human, truly human?” There is no answer. So, if you can simulate intelligence, emotions and behavior altogether then whether this is human or not is no longer a technological question. It is a religious one. Because in the end, we cannot even prove that human behavior isn’t a simulation, yet we interpret it. The discussion naturally moves toward the debate of the soul. As A.I. evolves, I am sure we will encounter this a lot. We will hear arguments like, “They can’t act like humans, they’re stupid” or rather than just “they’re dangerous” we’ll hear “they have no soul, so we can’t trust them.” I believe the subject will head toward a very spiritual, theological debate.

U.Y: We live in an age of hyperreality, where both human behavior and emotions are driven by extremes. Media tools capture every visual and auditory emotion, pushing them into a state of hyper-sensitivity. Consequently, the conversation shifts: why should it even be considered a problem if artificial intelligence doesn’t generate emotions?

C.Ö: We keep discussing the artificiality of A.I., but have you scrolled through Instagram lately? Do we notice just how many aspects of life are artificial, and how human behaviors and habits are purely learned by mimicking the environment? For instance, look at communities built around incredibly superficial debates, mindless arguments like “Alpha or beta?” and so on. What a broad spectrum. Is it good or bad? Is he the “nice guy” or the “bad boy”? It’s always the same tired debates. Can we ever escape a dilemma like that?

“There is a setting to turn off memory in ChatGPT. I’ve recommended that people shut it down. AI gathers some very unusual data about you. But I leave it on for myself, just to experiment.”

Throughout human history, we have been dealing with a human character so deep that it remains unilluminated. But this primitive dichotomy begins to construct all our debates, creating that artificial intellectual accumulation society holds onto. We are artificial anyway. Every single one of us. So who are we, really? We pretend that humanity is incredibly authentic and original, defining A.I. through this accusation or separation that it’s “artificial” and therefore inferior. But like I said, this is highly philosophical, and like most of these arguments, it will probably reach a dead end.

Deniz Benzer: When we look at our current interactions with A.I. especially with these large language models some describe it as “entering commands,” while others frame it as “prompting.” Do you think this terminology shapes the nature of that interaction? Are we positioned as active or passive agents against the machine?

Ü.A: Technology is moving so fast. In the beginning, we were told that the prompt was everything. “Commands” were inherently linked to programming languages, requiring technical background and training. I don’t know any code, so I couldn’t issue those commands. But thanks to web interfaces, I became one of the people who could use it. Then A.I. arrived, and claims were made that prompt engineering would be a major career path.

I actually wrote a piece on how they were searching for candidates with salaries of God knows how many thousands of dollars. Now, however, that excitement has died down. Just the other day, I accidentally pressed enter. I was about to ask ChatGPT a question but only typed the subject. It immediately asked, “Is this for a podcast content? Or are you working on a column?” It has learned so much from my patterns and adapted to me so well that it fills in the blanks when I leave things incomplete. Sometimes I prompt it with, “I’m going to write a column on this, what do you recommend?”, and other times I just upload my notes via a document. Take a scenario where I upload two hundred pages of my personal notes and ask it to compile and structure them. I believe the concept of prompting has moved past being a matter of engineering. It recognizes me and knows what I want, personalizing the process. While prompt engineering will certainly remain relevant for advanced professional workflows like image generation or video editing, even that is slipping away. They will adapt to natural human language. Because at their core, they are language models, they learn and language itself never stops evolving.

C.Ö: But prompt engineering isn’t going anywhere, let’s be real. In the end, the core difference between a command and a prompt is this: say there are a billion buttons. Activating one is a command; you get the same output every single time and anyone can push it. A prompt is the art of pushing a few specific buttons at the same time ones that no one else has touched before to generate a different outcome. So it is inherently meant for creative individuals. It’s an endless universe that will always offer options you couldn’t even dream of. I believe that also depends on memory. The machine’s memory changes how we relate to it. You know what they call the “context window” for ChatGPT? At some point, it acts like it has memory loss. But as it retains more about us, and as we understand it better, our inputs and demands will inevitably shift.

Ü.A: You can disable the personalization features if you prefer. There is a setting to turn off memory in ChatGPT. I’ve recommended that people shut it down. AI gathers some very unusual data about you. But I leave it on for myself, just to experiment. Recently, I asked it, “Who is Ümit Alan?” It revealed such personal aspects. It said that from time to time, his daughter Leyla uses his computer; Leyla loves Harry Potter and borrows the laptop occasionally, and Ümit acts a certain way. I then asked, “You don’t tell these things to others, right?” like if someone else inquires about me. It answered, “No, it’s just between us.” The memory tries to soothe you, but it remains there. That’s why I tell many people to shut off personalization. I’ve currently given in to it, and its link with memory is quite terrifying.

C.Ö: This reminds me of what Google learns about you, around 2011. It was an amazing talk. He was explaining how an algorithm figured out women were pregnant. This info was totally fresh to us back then. Certain women started getting pregnancy ads and called up in a rage, saying, “We aren’t pregnant, what is this?” Then, the truth would come out. The system started serving pregnancy ads to these individuals before they even knew their own status. Of course, huge conspiracy theories sparked from this. But the truth was that the learning algorithm detected that the changing habits of pregnant individuals were tied to those purchases. It just showed the same products to anyone mimicking that behavior. Things went wild. A father lost it, calling to complain, “Are you treating my daughter like she’s pregnant?” and then it turned out she was. Plenty of these cases popped up. These systems evolve entirely by learning our behaviors. We constantly treat artificial intelligence as if it were a brand-new debate, but we need to realize that what we call A.I. is simply a more sophisticated evolution of the very algorithms that have been tracking us for years.

“Ask for a left-handed painter and it will draw a right-handed one. It doesn’t know. Because in advertising, the sexiest image to drive consumer behavior is that specific placement of the hands.”

C.Ö: Generative A.I. is not really a novelty. Manipulating imagery, extracting inferences from text, machine learning infrastructures none of these are new concepts. Sure, the velocity of innovation increased once it became public. Moore’s Law holds true for software just as it does for hardware. In the end, it’s a continuous trajectory. We have framed this specific period and started judging everything by it. However, the whole story has been playing out this way since day one. I mean, haven’t we been having this exact conversation for years, independent of A.I.? Like when people say, “We talked about it twice on the phone, and next thing you know, the ads appeared.

Ozan Günel: As a result of the classes we held with Doctor Umut last year, we began to see other students’ data in the repository as well. I wonder if we can say something meaningful about society based on the data we’ve extracted from there?

C.Ö: If you go to any A.I. and say, “Make a video or photo of a clock showing 5 to 9,” it comes out as 10:10. Say, “Show me twenty clocks on the same screen, all pointing to 6:35.” You can test this on models like Stable Diffusion.

All the clocks will read 10:10. Ask for a left-handed painter, and it will draw a right-handed one. It doesn’t know. Because in advertising, the sexiest image to drive consumer behavior is that specific placement of the hands. That’s why nearly 95% of clocks online look like that, and A.I. inherently identifies all clocks as 10:10. These bugs will be fixed, of course. But currently, it’s the product of the internet average, and that’s their biggest hurdle. A.I. production is a direct reflection of our online consumption culture. Yet, they are attempting to define a universal human heritage for A.I. using nothing but the commercial content of today. It’s highly confusing.

Ü.A: It is actually experiencing a crisis over this right now. The data available for it to learn from is almost depleted. It has essentially run out on the internet, and now AI is trying to train on synthetic data meaning machine-generated data. This is making things even worse. You know the concept of the wisdom of the crowd. No matter how poor, dirty or open to manipulation human data is, it is still inherently healthier. The looming crisis once that raw human input is completely depleted proves that artificial intelligence can never escape being a direct reflection of society itself.

C.Ö: It’s always the same debate, really the place we land is always the same. We discuss it in so many different areas, but ultimately, what we’re really asking comes down to this: “Is this going to be for or against us, my friend?”

U.Y: So, when it comes to A.I.’s data consumption, what exactly will be to our advantage, and what will be to our detriment?

C.Ö: I believe that is where the argument hits a wall. For example, Skynet is one of the most popular examples used to induce fear about A.I. The narrative says that if it gets too smart and independent, it will harm us. There are so many stories like this.

A.I. is always portrayed as developing apart from us and despite us, leaving us in a passive role. We discuss it as if it’s just a movie: Is it good or bad? What’s going to happen to us? But the scary part is actually the humans who will wield it. Look at the history of electricity; it triggered wars and caused worldwide crises, yet it also civilized the world. Fewer people die or face injustices compared to a century ago. But modern humanity is deeply corrupted. The more advanced the tools you hand to humanity, the worse the destination will be. So the question shouldn’t be, “Will A.I. become independent and push the button?” The real question is, “How much longer will the people who hold this extraordinary, advanced technology use it for private interests and enslave the rest of the world?” But that happens anyway, even without A.I. Most of what we debate regarding A.I. is actually a debate about human nature and human decisions.

“Over ninety percent of all internet traffic is consolidated across just twenty websites. This is exactly what commercial forces intended. With artificial intelligence, however, the stakes are even higher.”

Ü.A: On that note, we can take the history of the internet’s development as a blueprint for where A.I. is going and where it’s getting stuck. Look at Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the HTTP protocol and a godfather of the internet. His disappointment tells the whole story. We created the internet to escape complete centralization. The concept originated in the US during the Cold War around the idea of breaking up central nodes. Because if Russia targeted a communication center with a nuclear weapon, everything would go down. So they invented the internet to decentralize power. It was fundamentally a military defense mechanism. But look at it now: everyone is consolidated on Facebook, Twitter and Google. It became a monopoly through commercialization, and that’s when things started to break down. Today, we are moving toward the opposite path.

C.Ö: Over ninety percent of all internet traffic is consolidated across just twenty websites. This is exactly what commercial forces intended. With artificial intelligence, however, the stakes are even higher. The internet was a technology birthed and nurtured under state oversight; governments were the foundational signatories of the internet treaty.

A.I., by contrast, is entirely market-driven, spearheaded from day one by the private sector. Consequently, the disillusionment we eventually experience with artificial intelligence may dwarf the heartbreak we’ve already suffered with the internet.

D.B: We are talking about all this, but is it possible that there’s a bit of techno-chauvinism involved with AI? I mean, we are constantly shifting between utopias and dystopias. These thematic topics keep recurring. It started six or seven years ago with post-truth. Then blockchains arrived. Next, we had this idea that NFTs were transforming art and then it was all about Meta and the coming of the Metaverse…

C.Ö: Look, fundamentally, none of these are actual bubbles. Neither NFTs nor crypto were inherent bubbles. Even the dotcom crash wasn’t a bubble in a structural, corporate sense, nor is the metaverse a bubble in concept. Instead, bubbles form because market forces rush to commodify these theoretical breakthroughs the exact moment they become trending topics. The real issue with AI right now is its destination. What will be the role of the Blackwell chips NVIDIA just announced? Look at the friction between China and the U.S. over server farms. On the other side, ChatGPT and OpenAI are building out their purely commercial arms. Incredible automated vehicle tech is coming. Something massive is definitely happening. But they are trying to sell it before the product is fully baked. You open the cheapest app. and there’s an A.I. tool on the margin. You press it, ask a question, and it answers. Markets digest the concept easily because it sells easily.

It’s the same pattern with NFTs. In theory, owning the unique code of a digital artifact is a fine idea. But when they say it will change the world and force every artist into it, turning the space into a marketplace overnight that’s when the bubble appears. I mean, wait a minute it might take ten to twenty years for the internet to reach the protocols and bandwidth necessary to function seamlessly but he changed the company’s name to Meta because Facebook was about to crash. Yet, the metaverse is non-existent today. It’s a bubble. We are experiencing the same loop with A.I. In May 2023, Goldman Sachs published a report. It claimed that if generative A.I. fulfills its promises, 25% of the Western workforce will lose their jobs in ten years. Even if seventy percent of current operations aren’t run by AI, they will rely on AI assistance. Meanwhile, national GDPs will spike by 8%. These institutions define a future where everyone loses their job as “increased productivity.” According to them, the world will become much wealthier. That is the exact theory that sparked the universal basic income debate. On that note, Ümit, do you recall Özgür Mumcu’s tweet about the metaverse? He said, “I never thought this Metaverse thing would turn into buying land in Mecidiyeköy.” (Mecidiyeköy is one of the most densely populated and expensive real estate zones in Istanbul) Honestly…

“People are asking, “Why are the creators of A.I. investing so much in these catastrophe scenarios?” When researched, it turns out they are demanding strict regulation.”

Ü.A: Yes, those investors are completely broke now. But there’s one more angle to consider, and it’s happening in the U.S. I wrote a piece on this. In U.S.A they uncovered a lobby group that constantly brings up worst-case scenarios before Congress. When they checked who was backing it, the biggest players like OpenAI came up. People are asking, “Why are the creators of A.I. investing so much in these catastrophe scenarios?” When researched, it turns out they are demanding strict regulation. They want to block smaller competitors from entering the market, leaving the field exclusively to the big companies. The objective is to eliminate competition. For this purpose, even the inventors are backing doomsday theories. At this stage, we are seeing the true decline of humanity.

C.Ö: At the same time, we cannot foresee the terrible outcomes. The world is passing through a fragile phase that can reshape everything. Take politics, for example. Will the world be more right-wing in ten years, or will the rising conservative wave fail and crash at some point? We don’t know what lies ahead, and this will deeply affect everything. Also, will the friction between China and the U.S. really have a winner? While everything looks great on the surface in China, their banking system is going under and we don’t know the fallout.

On the other hand, unlike Western countries suffering from major population declines, poorer and migration-heavy societies are seeing massive population growth. There are standard scenarios like food shortages and global warming, but we don’t know how they will play out. In a period with so many unstable variables, making a forecast is tough. When predicting is hard, you look for insurance. If you are in the dark, the risk grows bigger in your mind. For example, if you don’t know where your child is, you imagine the worst. This much uncertainty about the future of the world is driving us to prepare for worst-case scenarios.

Ü.A: Exactly! Who in the 1990s could have ever foreseen that Europe would experience such a severe relative decline by the 2020s? Today, Europe finds itself lagging behind both China and the United States across virtually every sector, yet back in the 90s, there wasn’t a single warning sign pointing toward this stagnation.

D.B: They say that one day A.I. could conquer the world. If a scenario like that ever happens, would it be the A.I acting on its own will, or would there be a human mastermind behind it who coded the A.I. in the first place? C.Ö: It’s always the same debate being repeated we’re afraid of an all-powerful artificial intelligence. We fear an AI that can access everything across the globe, just like in Person of Interest or Skynet. People are terrified of an AI that can transfer funds to any bank, instantly create fake identities, manipulate the internet as it pleases, and survive even if you pull the plug on its servers. Yet, if such an invincible instrument ever comes to exist, the true horror lies not in the machine, but in the human hand that wields it. We systematically overlook human malice while losing sleep over a theoretical Skynet. The reality is that humanity is dark enough to make our worst fears come to pass. Look at geopolitics: nation-states that master these A.I. simulation models will soon dominate the negotiating table without firing a single shot. By weaponizing the predictive outcomes of these simulations, they will extract strategic advantages without ever escalating to physical conflict. You’ve likely encountered analyses forewarning us of exactly this kind of future.

“We systematically overlook human malice while losing sleep over a theoretical Skynet. The reality is that humanity is dark enough to make our worst fears come to pass.”

Ü.A: There is a mediation-focused A.I. developed at M.I.T. It’s a diplomatic A.I. capable of bringing two conflicting sides together and framing all arguments to a point where a win-win scenario is possible for everyone.

C.Ö: We talk so much about being afraid of A.I. but we forget how terrifying human beings actually are. I believe humans will do everything we are afraid of. A.I. doesn’t need to make autonomous decisions it is already capable of everything. We look at social media and see this happening right now, and the results are truly terrible.

Ü.A: There is a famous paperclip experiment regarding A.I. that you probably know. You give the machine an order: “Produce the maximum number of paperclips possible.” Once it receives this, it starts manufacturing paperclips by wiping out everything else. In the end, the instruction still comes from a human.

O.G: For centuries, people feared monsters and things they didn’t understand. But following the boom of popular culture, we rebranded monsters and robots as our allies. This might be one of the reasons why humanity is unable to face its true fears. In games, everyone claims they chose the side of the robots or monsters. Perhaps human beings redirect their fear to something else because they are not existentially ready to confront their own nature.

C.Ö: You’ve summarized the narrative I’ve been trying to convey for the last hour so simply and elegantly. Of course, we should also note that there are still plenty of things to be feared about artificial intelligence itself.

Sedat Erol: In some fields, A.I. models are much more expert, especially when it comes to data analysis. While a novice might get a 1x benefit in a specific area, a mid-level professional can scale that benefit to 10x. While being an expert in just one domain was enough in the past, will the future force us to hold expertise in multiple fields?

Ü.A: An author named David Autor wrote a very nice article on this topic in Noema magazine. We always focus on how A.I. will steal all the jobs and cause unemployment. But if you look back, one of the things that hurt society after the Industrial Revolution was elite specialization. Careers like medicine and engineering became elite domains; you had to be either rich or smart to get in. With A.I., these professions will become possible to practice with less education. As a result, the middle class will expand across society. The middle class has shrunk because this elite expertise model brought us to this point. Why do we look at this negatively? Maybe because by spreading elite expertise to the middle class, people could reach better places with less education. I think the most vivid example of this is that most of the education my child or other kids get today is based on language learning. Especially in nonEnglish speaking countries like Türkiye, this is such a huge waste of time. A.I. is about to make language education almost useless.

Apple CEO Tim Cook was speaking to programmers in France. In that conference, he said, “Stop trying to learn English, you don’t need to learn a foreign language at all. Just focus on your software; there won’t be such a thing as a foreign language in the future.” The budgets spent on education in Türkiye are incredible; it means a massive amount of money and time. Maybe better jobs can be done with less education, and this could create positive effects instead of being bad. In the default scenario, A.I. takes over all jobs and people are left unemployed. But in another scenario, with less education, more qualified work can be done. Thanks to this, manual jobs which should actually earn good money but are currently looked down upon could rise. Geoffrey Hinton, called the “godfather of A.I.,” won the Nobel Prize this year. At a panel, they asked him, “What do you recommend to youth?” He said, “I would recommend they become plumbers.” Because those are hands-on jobs requiring manual skills that A.I. cannot easily handle.

“Geoffrey Hinton, called the “godfather of A.I.,” won the Nobel Prize this year. At a panel, they asked him, “What do you recommend to youth?” He said, “I would recommend they become plumbers.” Because those are hands-on jobs requiring manual skills that A.I. cannot easily handle.”

C.Ö: Harari once said, “The best profession in the 21st century is learning.” In an interview where Zuckerberg was asked about Facebook’s developments in artificial intelligence, he said that within a few years, AI will be able to do everything software engineers can do. In other words, he’s implying that a massive portion of the workforce will be laid off.

Ü.A: Consider the profession of plumbing. If a plumber doesn’t come to fix a problem in my home, my house will be flooded with water or sewage. So why is my line of work, writing, looked down on as less prestigious than theirs? Actually, there is a much bigger need for what they do. Right now, maybe these professions will flip completely and we can look at them from a more equal perspective.

C.Ö: We must not fear artificial intelligence. This is the primary starting point for us and the colleagues we work with. In literary publishing, translators and in media, copywriters, videographers and editors are sharing a similar fear. A.I. will make tasks easier, but these are all just instruments. In the end we are all forced to keep learning; the world is pushing us to this point. I’m not just saying this for laborers or fresh university graduates. It has become a necessity at every stage, title, and position. We reacted to this during the pandemic, being exposed to so many things about being productive instead of sitting idle. This is the world we are going to and we must accept it. Everyone at Socrates Magazine grew up and developed right here. Even for those who started here, their job descriptions from day one compared to today are totally different. Different tasks must be done in different ways, and new things are always entering your life. Don’t let these innovations scare you everything doesn’t just change overnight when you wake up one morning. Let’s say you work as a videographer and a more advanced tool comes out in your line of work. You start using it. Then, advanced A.I. models appear that you can use for social media posts and copywriting. By using them, you start working faster and learning new things. Even if you don’t learn anything, when you look back after a year, you just see how fast life has gone by. There is a danger like that, but I don’t think we should fear it. I am telling this to people who just graduated from university and worry that AI will ruin their careers.

Ü.A: I argue that education will become highly personalized. There is this concept of a curriculum. Especially in high schools, there are millions of kids from different socioeconomic groups with completely different learning speeds. The current curriculum expects all these children to learn the exact same way, making it generalized. What actually matters isn’t the syllabus, but the child’s learning pace, interests and socioeconomic conditions. I believe children can be educated much better through A.I. In this system, educators and teachers will shift to a guiding role; they will need to show how to reach information through different paths. Personalized education is crucial. The point is to specialize in certain areas and add your own touch. The result will be better because you are showcasing your own style. When everyone became able to do everything, we all leveled out at a certain mediocrity. The style of my own writing has also changed in the age of A.I. Now I tell more personalized stories, often starting with anecdotes that seem totally unrelated to the topic. Then, I connect it to the right information. There is no point in just giving correct facts anymore information is accessible to everyone. I practice my craft as a writer by making that information easier for people to internalize. These elements of personalization at the beginning and end make the topic fun and understandable. It creates a piece of work that highlights the human factor something A.I. simply cannot do. I recently wrote an article about the Beta generation.

“We shouldn’t be completely hopeless. The history of the reality that everyone agrees on is only 150 years old or so. When the French Revolution took place, nobody in a town thirty kilometers away was aware of it. This instant awareness is something that came with modern communication and technology.”

U.Y: By the way, I’m curious to know what you think about the generations.

Ü.A: We shouldn’t be completely hopeless. The history of the reality that everyone agrees on is only 150 years old or so. When the French Revolution took place, nobody in a town thirty kilometers away was aware of it. This instant awareness is something that came with modern communication and technology. It used to spread slowly, and we should go back to that same slowness. Leaving a note in history is precious. We know that the Criminal Court telling Netanyahu “You are guilty” will change nothing. A symbolic court was set up in Istanbul during the Second Gulf War, but it was of no use to anyone. In the Nazi era, Sophie Scholl saying her words of defiance and being executed two days later achieved nothing practically. Beyond winning, maybe this story should be about making a record.

C.Ö: Will something like this really happen? Will the dream of a generation that sees things from a human perspective come true? It’s highly unlikely.

U.Y: I want to move toward the legal side of things. You have this concept called the “Supranational Artificial Intelligence Regulatory Committee.” You even discussed it in Cumhuriyet [Editor’s Note: One of Türkiye’s most deeply rooted and influential secular-mainstream newspapers] but in your opinion, is it really possible to implement effective regulations through a global body like that?

Ü.A: It really operates like a regulatory institution. Whenever a new technology or innovation has arrived throughout history, chaos has always followed. When gramophones and musicplaying devices were invented, instrument shops thought, “From now on, nobody will buy instruments because everyone will have a gramophone at home. What is the point of an instrument?” But the love for music grew, and musicians complained, “No one will come to concerts anymore how will we earn money?” That’s when record technology came out; they sold vinyls and made a living.

The same exact thing happened with MP3s. In the early 2000s, everyone said the music business was dead. When the legendary Ferdi Tayfur passed away recently, it was reported that he still generated three million liras in monthly digital royalties. With enough patience, things stabilize, and this rules for A.I. too. We did an episode called “A.I. and Law” on Yeni Medya 451. We examined many lawsuits involving A.I. there. It was very exciting to research. Soon, we will have the right to appeal many choices made by A.I. People aren’t rejecting our credit loans anymore; a computer, an A.I. tool inside the banking network is making that choice. So who are we going to sue? We will have to sue the A.I. There are many court cases about this in the US. In parole decisions, A.I. can show bias based on race. These things will keep happening fi rst comes chaos, then discussions. After discussions come regulation and normalization. Then a new innovation, and a new chaos.

“ I believe children can be educated much better through A.I.”

U.Y: I want to turn to the issue of copyright. The struggles faced by cartoon magazines were caused by the free circulation of cartoons. These pieces of work are just so easy to share on social media channels.

C.Ö: These problems will be solved. A landmark class-action lawsuit is going on in the US right now. This kind of lawsuit affects a huge number of people because you sue on behalf of all victims at once, meaning if you win, everyone gets a piece of the compensation. There is a huge lawsuit against Stable Diffusion today. Since images were scraped from the web and integrated into their model, it was filed for all the copyright owners. The result of this case will be very decisive.

It all comes down to the concept of “fair use” people are arguing whether this counts as fair use or not. The founders of Stable Diffusion and Midjourney say, “What art piece can exist without any inspiration or foundation?” On the other hand, we see that the copied training images actually reappear in the A.I.’s own creations. For example, because it trained on photos with the Getty Images watermark, the Getty Images logo shows up on the right or left of some generated pictures. Because of this, Getty Images is also in the lawsuit. This case will prove if the world is ruled by a side that cares about democracy. If Stable Diffusion and Midjourney lose, A.I. systems will have to pay royalties for all the training data they pull from the internet. This will only be valid in the western world and it won’t stop China. So, A.I. companies will have to pay for all internet content and buy copyrights. This is a very fair and well-deserved situation. You cannot just use people’s pictures randomly, build a system, and make a fortune. But at the same time, we will see countries outside of copyright treaties developing their own networks, gathering massive data, and leading the AI field. The same rule applies to AI used in weapons, war, and every other area. We face a huge dilemma. If we are afraid of China ruling the world and us, it looks like we might have to sacrifice democracy.

U.Y: It was a valuable conversation where we discussed both new media and society, and A.I. and humans in depth. Thank you very much for taking the time to join us and for contributing to our special feature. We’re so glad you accepted our invitation and joined us today.

Can Öz & Ümit Alan: It’s a beautifully fitting end to a show where, honestly, all the questions were asked by men and all the answers were given by men! You’ve asked some truly brilliant questions, so thank you so much. (Laughs)

“Artificial Intelligence: A reflection of what we teach it.” yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Anthropologist and communication sciences researcher Professor Erkan Saka delves into the concept of techno-feudalism and the shift from a once-decentralized internet to a landscape dominated by a few major tech oligarchs. Exploring the structural transformation of digital platforms, algorithmic hegemony, and our increasing parallelism to “digital serfs,” Saka unpacks how Big Tech corporations control both internet infrastructure and user data without democratic oversight.

Elif Başlantı: Hello, Professor Saka. Welcome. We are very happy to have you here. Can we start by getting to know who you are?

Erkan Saka: Thank you for the warm welcome. First of all, I appreciate the invitation. I am a faculty member at Istanbul Bilgi University in the Department of New Media and Communication. I have been working on new communication technologies for many years. Overall, I am trying to do this within a field that can be considered media anthropology. And here we are today, that’s how we got here.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: We chose the topic for the special issue of the magazine we are publishing as “Techno- Feudalism”. First of all, could you tell us what Techno- Feudalism is and what we should understand when we hear about it?

E.S: I don’t study this literature directly, but roughly speaking, we can say that a number of large technology companies dominate internet usage in a feudal manner. We can’t talk about a complete monopoly, but it can also be called an oligopolistic market. Sometimes the names of seven tech companies are mentioned, sometimes even more. These companies control the infrastructure and content of the internet tools we use daily. Since there isn’t a democratic process involved, a new concept has emerged that particularly references the Middle Ages.

M.B.A: Reflecting on the 90s and 2000s, when people believed in rapid Internet progress and social democratization, thinking wars were over and to raise a quesiton: “How technological advances Given the conservative nature of techno-feudalism, how are technological advances currently able to bring feudalism back? What are we doing wrong?

E.S: It is Highlighted that the medieval concept mainly focuses on property relations. Currently, it’s hard to determine what is progressive or regressive. Surprisingly, there’s been an unexpected development: widespread disappointment across researchers, social scientists, the public, and internet users. Many were initially pessimistic, but a new communication tool still emerged, offering some benefits. It was claimed to ‘bring world peace’ and to aid democratization to varying degrees.

However, these hopes haven’t materialized today. Not only did they fail, but democratization also didn’t fully occur. The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals.

Initially controlled largely by the U.S., the internet’s influence was tied to American foreign policy. Now, large tech corporations feel no need to pursue democratization, as their dominance already gives them significant power. When combined with political influence, this resembles feudal sovereignty, where powerful entities can control content and exclude users at will.

M.B.A: Capitalism continuously creates monopolies and oligopolies, which are not new. History shows technological breakthroughs but today, a new discussion emerges: how did the Magnificent Seven become so wealthy? Why is the mode of production changing, and is capitalism ending? What’s different today?

E.S: Is it truly wrong to look back and evaluate? While there’s a pause before and after the internet era, similar situations likely occurred earlier. America’s golden age post-1950s was marked by technological dominance, with at least one rival, the Soviet Union, leading at times. However, within the Western world, America’s technological supremacy was clear. During that period, the system was more centralized and state-managed, yet certain brands held significant dominance. After the 1980s and 1990s, some brands gained prominence and products from the Far East entered the market. They have entered a new era, but the period preceding it was one of domination. While debates and issues like central-peripheral dynamics were discussed, today’s landscape features technology companies, which are better described as a feudal, fragmented structure rather than a unified dominion. The journey to this point traces back to the information revolution starting in the 1960s, in which industrial production gradually shifted toward information and data as the source of power. Baudrillard, whom you focus on, would likely be astounded by today’s reality if he saw it in the 1980s.

Back then, the media was less overwhelming, but information’s influence was steadily growing, a trend amplified by the internet, leading to a significant leap. Now, major tech giants are fundamentally data-driven; the transformation of information into data has become the core of power. This development partly stemmed from a lack of regulation without intervention; each company monopolized its domain. While varying in other countries, within the American system, this environment fostered such growth, with regulation only briefly considered during Democratic administrations before shifts in power. Ultimately, placing data at the center means that companies harnessing data now shape this new global order.

“The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals. Initially they were controlled largely by the U.S.”

M.B.A: We’ve observed similar patterns with Bitcoin and virtual currencies. When unknown enters the state realm, regulation follows. Yet, states seem to retreat regarding companies involved in techno-feudalism discussions, especially as Elon Musk consolidates power and possible sanctions are rolled back against Jeff Bezos. Could this signal a shift in the relationship between state and capital, moving away from states regulating and profiting from capital? How do you interpret this shift?

E.S: I believe it’s premature to draw such a conclusion because we still don’t fully grasp these relationships. What we do know is that the Silicon Valley myth was largely created by the American government. There’s no simple story of Stanford University was founded, leading to incredible startups, and then Silicon Valley was born. “When the U.S. fell behind the Soviet Union technologically, it responded with signifi cant investments that laid the foundation for these ventures.” The idea that “Libertarian rhetoric dominates Silicon Valley” is actually misleading, either self-deception or a false impression. Libertarians claim, “We don’t want government involvement,” yet many large companies, including Elon Musk’s, could not have amassed such power without government contracts. Therefore, the dynamics of reliance between these entities are complex. It’s not entirely accurate to say that Big Tech directly controls the U.S. government, as there are mutual interests involved. Snowden’s disclosures also demonstrated that these social media platforms provided extensive intelligence and shared data with the U.S. government. TikTok was the fi rst to challenge the American monopoly; when it achieved great success in the U.S., attempts were made to block or restrict it.

“They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world.”

M.B.A: I think the closing events are still on the agenda.

E.S: Yes, I believe the ownership structure has also shifted. In U.S.A, interference in the algorithm implies a change in the entire American foreign policy. When issues arise, they claim, “Then we will intervene.” This situation has made their mutual relationship more apparent. It’s important to highlight that this is not a one-sided scenario. The U.S. government also gains significantly from these companies. When they previously advocated for internet freedom as a foreign policy issue, it was actually a form of PR aimed at countries targeted by the American government. Looking back now, this is much clearer. Additionally, it’s worth noting that last year, Big Tech was the group that lobbied the most in Washington and spent the most on lobbying. Now, these tech companies are investing even more money there than traditional capital. As I mentioned, there is a mutual relationship between them.

E.B: Since the last U.S. election, discussions on algorithmic hegemony have grown. If a Techno-Feudal system becomes fully integrated, will algorithms cause social change by limiting freedom and choices?

E.S: If the current course remains unchanged, the worst-case scenario depicted here may come true. Fortunately, people are inherently creative and always find ways to resist.

Things rarely unfold exactly as planned because, if they did, we might live in a world where our freedom is stripped away, and algorithms dominate decision-making. In fact, we already live in part in that world, where algorithmic systems influence our daily lives, yet many vulnerabilities remain. These vulnerabilities give us some room to maneuver.

If Big Tech or Elon Musk controlled everything, they would eagerly create a dystopian future, but cracks inevitably appear. History shows that leaving Big Tech unchecked often results in harmful outcomes, although most companies are not inherently malicious. They simply view the world from their own perspective. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, for example, are focused on their own interests and rarely care about democratization worldwide. The era of Google’s “Don’t be evil” slogan is over. Without such ethical concerns, they feel no obligation to consider individual users. Consequently, it falls on us to protect ourselves.

Additionally, Big Tech’s insensitivity and ineptitude regarding social issues highlight the need for interventions at every level off civil society, initiatives, and governments. Without these efforts, as you mentioned, a dystopian future could emerge, eroding human freedom.

M.B.A: The narrative is harsh, suggesting, “You will techno-feudalize and become serfs.” Could today’s dystopia be self-created? Using social media, liking, and effort might also reinforce algorithmic hegemony.

E.S: I’m uncertain if it’s worth delving too deeply into conspiracy theories. Should we really be pulled further into such worlds? However, sometimes inducing fear can be effective in reaching those who are afraid. It’s unclear whether this is intentional or accidental. For instance, constant criticism of a group can cause people to fear them, and this fear might even lead to that group’s rise to power. I have examples in mind, but I won’t specify them. A similar pattern could exist here, but based on observations, most criticisms seem well-meaning; they aim to prevent the dystopia we’re discussing. Nonetheless, how we critique these issues matters; overly harsh portrayals might be unhelpful. Gramsci’s theories may shed more light on how hegemony is produced, especially since social media doesn’t enter our lives through bullying. It spreads quickly because it’s useful or appears so to us. Despite warnings about data privacy, people continue to use it. This is also worth considering.

E.B: Professor, based on your explanation, I see that consumers have little say and are controlled. Technofeudalism mimics feudalism through digital serfdom. What does digital serfdom mean, and how are we becoming serfs again?

E.S: The techno-feudal analogy is accurate, but I prefer not to be too harsh on the serfdom aspect. We haven’t fully become serfs yet, but the current trend suggests we are heading that way. Historically, serfs were basically the laborers of feudal lords, more like semi-slaves, since most of the land belonged to these lords. Today, a similar situation persists: the platforms we use are not truly ours, and even the content we consume may not legally belong to us. This creates a confusing scenario. Everything you produce is controlled by the platform; if it shuts down or claims to have lost your data, you have little recourse.

This bears a serious resemblance to feudalism. The key difference is that you can now leave the platform, unlike medieval serfs, who had no such option. They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world. Only the elite seems capable of complete detachment from the system. If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing. These platforms help us stay socially connected, but there’s no life-or-death stakes involved. Communication can continue through WhatsApp groups. While platforms haven’t completely boxed us in, it’s still difficult to break those bonds. Sometimes, switching to alternative platforms provides a welcome change. Moving your activity elsewhere is like choosing a different feudal lord, a chance that didn’t exist before and wasn’t easy to find.

M.B.A: The discussion now includes the potential takeover of internet infrastructure technology. For instance, people might say, “I’ll order from Yemeksepeti” without knowing the restaurant. Similarly, taxi stands are replaced by apps, closing traditional stands. It seems we are increasingly creating our own consent for actions.

E.S: You’re right, but as I mentioned, we’re facing a very challenging period. While contemplating how to escape this cycle of Tech-Feudalism, it’s helpful to consider broader perspectives. For instance, why do I use Uber now? I turn to Uber because taxi stands aren’t closing, yet they aren’t functioning properly, and we understand why. There are also local social issues at play. These problems are often exploited by Big Tech feudal lords they sometimes create problems deliberately and then offer solutions, or they simply build their systems atop existing issues. For example, what if children weren’t so captivated by tablets? During my childhood, I could play outside freely. The city provided space for all of us. Today, urbanization has pushed us into digital spaces. To foster real change, social policies that extend beyond the digital sphere are necessary, requiring efforts that go beyond individual action. For example, many local governments worldwide have imposed restrictions on Airbnb. The resulting issues, like increased rent and housing shortages, serve as useful indicators. I believe these local or governmental restrictions offer meaningful signals about how to intervene effectively in the system.

“If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing.”

Umut Yiğit: Professor, in a previous interview with Nurdoğan Rigel, she said, “Social media platforms are invading our private space. This space is becoming both public and private.” From an anthropological and sociological view, how do you describe this transformation? Is private space becoming public? Is the nature of publicness changing, or is our daily public life transforming?

E.S: Let me respond as a true liberal: everything occurs simultaneously. We need a new conceptual framework. While the idea of the public sphere was initially evolving in this direction, the advent of algorithms made organic dissemination of content impossible. Platform-based advertising and business models also enforce this. Most platforms operate this way. Organic content is rarely shared; users must actively oppose the algorithm.

As a result, the originally freer concept of the public sphere has greatly diminished, especially due to Twitter and similar apps. Initially, Twitter was seen as a kind of public space, but over time, we began to reflect more of our private lives. New platforms and initiatives have emerged in this context. Platforms do not explicitly instruct users, but users adapt to the division of roles. Twitter (X) has a distinct structure, while Instagram is assigned a different role. TikTok used to show less of insider views. This necessitates case-by-case analysis and reconsideration of what constitutes publicness. Overall, both the public and private spheres have undergone significant transformation.

Some personal data that we previously regarded as private now appears less so. Clearly, we must reexamine ethical issues using empirical evidence. Since the situation differs across platforms, we cannot directly apply public-space debates to this context. This understanding has become evident.

U.Y: I think a new conceptual framework is needed for the answer.

E.S: Yes, definitely.

Deniz Benzer: We discussed macro-level and structural elements. Based on your anthropology background, what is the micro-level equivalent of these events? What is the relationship between structure and microscale? Does an individual have a unique tactical space, and does it narrow or expand over time?

E.S: Overall, I believe this area has become more limited. Theories by thinkers like Michel de Certeau are relevant here. While some resistance remains, it’s now much harder due to the shift of control to algorithms after the bypassing of the chronological flow. Our ability to challenge the system has thus decreased.

However, people still find ways to bypass censorship or content restrictions imposed by Big Tech through various formats, sometimes even migrating collectively. Although these collective efforts aren’t always successful, we still have the power to decide as a community, for instance, choosing to switch from WhatsApp to Signal. Individual actions rarely achieve results, but once a critical mass is reached, we can compel the system to change certain digital habits.

Recent attempts, like migrating from Twitter to Bluesky or Mastodon, have largely failed, with many returning to X. I personally returned because of the Gulf War situation, but generally, we seek sensation, spreading rumors rather than clear information. We accept chaos in exchange for constant flow. For example, the rise and fall of BeReal show our reluctance to show our natural selves; we prefer filters and poses.

We must ask ourselves the purpose behind our actions. I think we should gather on Mastodon instead of X, but participation remains low. Mastodon has functioned as an alternative for eight years, successful in ways other options haven’t been. Still, we need to understand why we’re not more involved. If we act collectively, we could send a strong message to tech giants. It’s important to view this from multiple angles, acknowledging individual self-criticism but also recognizing that some issues require broader structural regulation.

U.Y: Initially, Instagram only shared posts. As posts became more aesthetic, the “story” format was introduced. Recently, a new feature called Instant was launched, going live immediately after a photo is taken. The system constantly produces new versions to keep content creation lively amid continuous staging. From an anthropological view, how is value formed here?

Erving Goffman

E.S: Erving Goffman described this as the theatrical nature of everyday life years ago. We have always been wearing masks in our daily interactions, even before the internet. Depending on our relationships, we take on different roles, for example, with parents, students, children, or lovers. There’s always an effort to perform and present ourselves attractively. Being authentic can sometimes feel like a bold statement, but in reality, there’s no true ‘natural’ state. We shape ourselves based on the situation at any given moment. Sometimes we aim for internal consistency; other times, we can’t. So, what we see on Instagram isn’t unusual to me; it’s just our way of presenting ourselves publicly.

In this respect, Instagram exemplifies capitalism, constantly generating new commodities with the latest being the “Instant” tool. Certainly, given its vast platform, it can easily incorporate features it finds appealing from other platforms. Currently, people consume content that gives rise to new media types or metas. When users engage with these, Instagram also updates their profiles accordingly. However, humans have diverse perspectives on life. Sometimes, we want to appear natural; other times, we craft a more fictional persona. The reasons behind this variability are complex. As a media theorist, I prefer not to delve into ontological or philosophical debates. From my observations, we tend to mirror the media itself. While media can enhance certain traits we already possess, most behaviors still feel very human. There has also been discussion about “influencers”, who now often seem very artificial. It appears Instagram aims for a more natural look, despite our ongoing posing. Still, “Instant” will also be aestheticized and experimental new meta… That’s the nature of this game.

Sedat Erol: Professor, a study shows that only 20% of the social media content are the ones we ourselves choose, while 80% are ads and promoted posts created by algorithms. We think we’re following our choices, but that’s not true. If we see this feed illusion as Tech- Feudalism, how would you interpret it?

E.S: Currently, I haven’t identified a single concept to fully describe this situation. If I had, I might be famous already. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: Tech-Feudalism might not have developed this way; it might have followed a different path. Initially, it was quite different, with a higher chance for organic content and your own content to be noticed and spread. Over time, they devised a new business model, reducing organic growth to the levels you mentioned. Although they could have adopted another revenue stream, they effectively integrated advertising, thereby generating significant profits. Usually, when a system is thriving, people don’t question it or seek improvements for users. It continues until it fails. Currently, with no better options available, we look to Instagram and Twitter. But we know most content isn’t from the accounts we follow. TikTok, on the other hand, has been more successful with personalized content, which explains its rapid rise. Although Meta and Google know us well, they didn’t see the need for personalized content until now. Personally, I find TikTok highly effective because everything aligns with my interests. Other platforms could do the same, but their different business models prevent them from doing so. TikTok is changing now, with more ads appearing, and the content flow may shift. Platforms constantly experiment, and without strong alternatives, they manipulate us, sometimes forcing behaviors.

On YouTube, for instance, to get views, you must run ads; otherwise, watching is nearly impossible. Organic growth takes years to develop. It wasn’t always like this; it evolved over the past 4-5 years. In a few years, platforms may adopt new models that could improve content fl ow. A large user uprising could encourage a shift in system design. For example, AI tools are entirely subscription-based, with paid options pushed immediately. Social networks might evolve in different directions later, but for now, their current operation suits their business interests. We’re compelled to accept this reality.

E.B: Is it possible that what you’re describing could serve as a solution for creating a decentralized internet?

Erkan Saka: Achieving this might be partially possible. Since it hasn’t been attempted yet, the exact risks are unknown. For now, we should monitor how decentralized networks develop and function. I’m cautious because, when blockchain first appeared, it was seen as a nearly unbreakable tool against media censorship. While the immutability of content can be beneficial, it also raises concerns about disinformation. If false information is stored there, it’s impossible to modify or halt its dissemination. Once identified, such issues challenge the idea that blockchain didn’t work either, as it may cause unintended consequences. Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: “How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?’’ We also need to consider this. Currently, social media content is quite poor, and decentralized networks do not guarantee democratization. So, what’s our next step? It’s important to reflect on these questions, but we should still explore these alternatives. The issue is that users today face a few challenges. For instance, techno-feudal lords offers such engaging content that we rarely feel the need to experiment. However, when we do try, we will better understand its potential.

“Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: ‘How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?”’

M.B.A: Today, debates on techno-feudalism divide, with some saying, “This too shall pass,” and others claiming it’s just platform capitalism, not true techno-feudalism. As a media theorist and sociologist, where do you stand on this issue?

E.S: I don’t believe our situation is as dystopian as it might seem. The concept of platform capitalism, I see, doesn’t suggest greater freedom or equal competition. We’re not equally involved in it. Our ability to influence capitalist dynamics is limited. At first, large monopolies regulate and oversee the system. That’s why we’re still in a transitional phase. For example, the impact of artificial intelligence remains uncertain; its transformative potential could shake up the current order. Google, which primarily earns through search, might not fall overnight but could gradually lose importance if it fails to develop new revenue streams. Its dominance as a search engine might diminish. Compared to old feudal lords, tech-oligarchs also operate within quite fragile structures.

“During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as ‘swing states.’ These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters.”

E.B: Professor, you mentioned search engine mechanisms. Our data is stored digitally, and our behaviors are commodified. Do these practices deepen surveillance capitalism? How does this exchange ecosystem shape individual political and ideological consent?

E.S: Data analysis and the use of personal data are highly advanced today. Humans are complex; at sub-human or super-human levels, vast amounts of data about us are collected and can be directed. This is already utilized in the commercial sector to stimulate consumption. The internet ordering systems and digital transformation are particularly advanced. My hope is that humans are not entirely stable; we change frequently, and so these mathematical models work to some degree. However, human behavior patterns start to evolve, requiring ongoing analysis. This creates a continuous data chase. Nonetheless, existing data remains valuable. For example, the Cambridge Analytica case, though not very effective overall, appears to have influenced voter behavior during critical moments.

M.B.A: Could you explain a bit more about Cambridge Analytica?

E.S: During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as “swing states.” These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters. At that time, Trump nearly won all of these swing states, and the Democrats could have won, too. This illustrates how subtle factors can influence human behavior and lead to specific outcomes. Today’s data is valuable for this purpose, giving those in power influential tools. However, it’s not always effective because people don’t always follow consistent patterns. If they did, sociology and anthropology wouldn’t be needed. Humans can act unexpectedly, which offers hope, but we also follow observable behaviors. That makes data crucial and widely use of data may can shape many of our consumption habits, though we do have some room to escape. In politics, this is even more evident. For instance, when I buy something for personal use, I tend to follow straightforward recommendations. But in political decisions, I don’t always do that, leaving some space for autonomy.

Murat Uluk: When Mansur Yavaş was first elected, he created an alternative to Yemeksepeti, saying, “Restaurants can find a place here, with no commission.” Can municipalities develop apps to break major app monopolies and store data locally?

E.S: The concept of “commons” shared resources relates more to collective situations. For instance, platforms like Facebook could be nationalized gradually. If Mark Zuckerberg finds they aren’t profitable, he might give up, allowing these platforms to become foundations. Many internet services follow this model; Wikipedia is a prime example. It’s the largest data repository, run by a foundation, which could attract advertising but chooses to rely on donations. The internet’s core pillars include organizations like Archive.org and foundation-based models. Although not yet applied directly to social media, these models could be adapted. Such projects are costly and require involvement from local governments or civil initiatives.

Crucially, we should apply lessons learned about the purpose of this service and how its algorithm should reflect that. Transparency in algorithms is vital, especially for public work, as it enables collective input. If an algorithm produces negative outcomes, citizens can support improvements. This approach has proven effective in various cases, though some initiatives, like the Ankara application, didn’t continue. Successful implementation requires good logistics. I believe much of this will become a public activity again. For example, municipal Wi-Fi services were once a form of public service, were later restricted, and could be reintroduced. Governments are increasingly concerned with digital and data sovereignty, leading to more user-supported public efforts. While China and Russia have established their own systems, with genuine goodwill and focus on the user, such models can succeed. Nothing is impossible.

M.U: Professor, considering your experience with FriendFeed and MySpace, how did the ideas you had back then shape your expectations for today?

E.S: There was definitely more hope. Now, I view the internet’s state more critically. In fact, internet users themselves can be problematic. FriendFeed could have thrived independently; those who didn’t maintain it are actually us. There’s a Turkish site where many content pieces are uploaded. I believe this site could have become as popular as Reddit globally. However, the owners acted so greedily and disregarded the users that they initially made good money, but then ruined the platform. I think that site is no longer viable and will gradually fade away. They declared, “Sovereignty must be entirely ours, and there shouldn’t even be moderators. Let’s make money first, then consider other things.” Their greed caused them to lose their standing as a trusted source. I observe similar patterns in the independent media environments I engage with. Friends who receive funding quickly leave us. We actually have talented people, supportive environments, and user potential. Most of the time, we lose because we’re too opportunistic. When faced with this, the Techno-Feudals approach us and

S.E: Professor, about 4-5 months ago, you appeared as a guest on a podcast where your insights on artificial intelligence and academia truly stood out to me. I would like to hear your overall thoughts on how artificial intelligence relates to education.

E.S: It’s been approximately 5-6 years since the emergence of productive artificial intelligence. In my view, this represents the most notable technological shift since the rise of the internet. Although social media, the metaverse, and mobility haven’t directly influenced our curriculum, artificial intelligence has. This creates a serious challenge. For the first time, we need to ask questions like, “How will we handle exams or homework?” Previously, we might have said, “They just copy from Wikipedia,” which was a minor concern. Now, even plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin are ineffective. This technology also directly challenges teachers. We need to reconsider how we deliver education. While students go through their own learning processes, the academic landscape is more impacted because peers work is now easier to access. There’s also an epistemic issue at play. How do we acquire knowledge today? Previously, we complained that “People aren’t reading,” yet some reading still occurred. Now, many rely on a single platform: asking an A.I., which often provides an answer accepted as the final truth. Historically, we would consult Wikipedia or other sources and synthesize information. This over-reliance on A.I. answers raises a serious epistemic crisis, as convenience grows and people stop verifying sources, accepting single answers as truth. This erodes the multi-step process of gathering information, which was educational in itself, prompting questions like “Where should I look?” and “What should I do?” The future is uncertain, but it’s said to engender mental laziness. While this may be partly true, users know that A.I. responses aren’t always sufficient. We adapt by rephrasing prompts to better achieve our goals. I don’t want to present a wholly negative view; even with A.I., we understand that the results are not always adequate on their own, leading us to refine our questions for better answers.

We are still activating our minds, but we’re at a different stage now. It seems we’ve entered a period of transformation. From an academic standpoint, producing writing is now very easy, which can be problematic. Those who criticize this don’t fully understand how the academic process works. Most academics can usually tell if a text was produced by A.I. because academic writing involves a process. Ultimately, more content is being generated. The key question then becomes, “How will your work stand out in this growing pool?” When conducting a literature review with tools like Google, an algorithm runs in the background. Based on your search criteria, your work is either highlighted or overlooked. For instance, I asked A.I. tools such as Elicit, Consensus, and Google Academic Labs, which focus on my main research area, to find my publications. One tool showed my work, while the others did not, and we don’t know how they select results. The question now is, “Whose publications are highlighted?” Could this introduce a new form of data colonialism? We’re still early in these debates. Additionally, there’s concern about what data A.I. is trained on and what information it processes. I’m indirectly involved in a TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) project to develop a Turkish Large Language Model (LLM). I’m monitoring how local knowledge is incorporated, as existing global models have limited Turkish data. How will Türkiye’s data be integrated into these models? Countries are developing their own language models, but the quality and content inclusion during construction are crucial.

Academic input could be valuable here, though the process remains complex. There’s also a sectoral aspect: industry believes that sector-specific texts will boost personalized learning, a view I share. It’s beneficial if students want to learn a language or other skills, that’s very positive. We used to struggle with this, often unable to solve certain problems. Perhaps A.I. can clarify these matters for us more effectively. However, questions remain about how it will explain and to whom. This is another concern. I believe we are going through the greatest test since the internet’s arrival. That’s my perspective.

M.B.A: Is it necessary to create initiatives against AI, Techno-Feudalism, and digital companies, individually or collectively? Should we, like Luddites, reject AI altogether? How should we position ourselves within this process? Or should we accept our fate and wait for universal income? What are your thoughts?

Erkan Saka: Earning that income is challenging for us, which is why waiting isn’t an option. Although it would be ideal to wait and enjoy a comfortable retirement, we need to actively support all initiatives and open-source projects within our capacity. Standing behind everyone and making an effort is important. We should also contribute to Wikipedia, which is very strict against A.I. generated content. They employ A.I. bots for editing, but all content is verified by human editors and moderators, which is impressive.

Currently, Wikipedia and its sister projects represent some of the most human-produced content, making them important examples in opposition to AI-generated material. Supporting these efforts is crucial. As a community, we can’t stay disconnected; only a small minority can completely avoid digital life, which most of us depend on to sustain ourselves. Resistance from within is possible, such as reviewing our consumption patterns to reduce intake. Some issues, such as the sector’s concept of “multitasking,” are macro-level and beyond individual control. We need to understand what true “multitasking” actually involves and when it’s appropriate. I love “multitasking” and I believe that I do it very well. However, many people just open multiple screens, thinking it’s effective. It’s important to deconstruct concepts like productivity and ask what real efficiency and results truly mean. We should reassess these ideas for ourselves. I believe in these concepts and strive to improve my efficiency, but beyond sector-imposed language and advertising, we need to find what’s beneficial for us and our environment. This requires internal effort, and sharing ideas and experiences collectively is vital.

“Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are definitely valuable.”

With over ten new A.I. tools emerging daily, sharing our insights helps us avoid wasting time. Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are defi nitely valuable.

I have a story related to this about 15 years ago, I was walking in Berlin after an event when I saw a group of 15-20 people protesting against Big Tech’s use of our personal data. I initially thought, “What impact can this small group have?” and felt a bit sad. Now, however, the European Union is known for its strict personal data regulations, controlling a vast market with significant influence. The system they’ve put in place is effective, maybe not perfect, but it exists. Reflecting on this, I realize those small efforts and initiatives led to meaningful outcomes. I still believe that a sphere of influence can be established. Today, X is sometimes used to seek justice, showing that these platforms aren’t empty spaces. Still, our work to establish reliable sources must continue, including creating digital archives and mastering control over information and data. That’s why I focus on my website for my main content. While I share on social media to increase interaction, it’s not my primary communication channel. Engagement often offers no real benefits and can even work against us. Sometimes, it’s better to remain unseen.

M.B.A: Thank you very much for participating then.

Erkan Saka: Thank you very much. I am honored.

The Illusion of Daily Life: “The Era of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ is Over” yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“Capitalism is inherently rooted in human nature,” forming the basis of the classical school of economics. This view posits that capitalism is distinguished by its focus on rational profit maximization, based on the belief that humans are intelligent beings who consider potential gains in all actions.

Recently, questions such as “Where is humanity headed?” and “Is capitalism ending?” are being addressed through a new framework called Techno-Feudalism or Neo-Feudalism. As technological progress, including AI, robotics, and internet infrastructure, becomes deeply integrated into daily life, discussions of universal basic income are often paired with dystopian visions from Big Tech. Even critical studies supporting this framework suggest capitalism’s demise. Nonetheless, many other works focus on capitalism’s emergence, growth, and crises. Certainly, before dismantling capitalism, it is essential to ask, “How did capitalism originate?” This question offers crucial insight into the story of capitalism’s demise. Nevertheless, answering it is challenging. Even after centuries, there is no consensus in social and economic sciences, and it remains a focus of significant research.

While various answers exist, two main perspectives are often introduced. The first argues that “Capitalism is inherently rooted in human nature” forming the basis of the classical school of economics. This view posits that capitalism is distinguished by its focus on rational profit maximization (RCT Theory), based on the belief that humans are intelligent beings who consider potential gains in all actions. It also suggests that capitalism, by seeking to enhance labor productivity through technological means, assumes that humans will naturally choose the most efficient methods, which it regards as an instinct. These ideas are grounded in Enlightenment notions of progress, which view humanity’s ongoing enlightenment as culminating in humans’ realization of their true nature. Until then, humans have faced significant challenges, with the development of capitalism seen as a process of overcoming these obstacles. Evidence for this perspective includes technological advances since Homo sapiens first used tools and historical exchange of material commodities.

This perspective suggests that capitalism has no point of origin. While human nature continues to exist, it must transcend its constraints -such as those from Feudalism- to mature. These constraints are often political: feudal lords, parasitic powers, culture, and religion. Regulations that hinder human nature constrain the growth of “economic” agents. So, even after humanity’s goal of globalization and the transformation of economic agents into regulators, why do traces of feudalism re-emerge under the guise of Techno-Feudalism?

A second perspective emerges from a critical view on capitalism, rooted in Marx’s foundational work, Zur Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, 1859). Marx’s critique highlighted that wealth is not inherently capital; rather, capital represents a specific social relation. This suggests that wealth accumulation alone did not directly lead to capitalism’s rise, as capital is more than just wealth or profit; it is a form of social relationship. Consequently, capitalism’s origins are not solely tied to accumulation. In contrast to other theories, this view implies that humans are not inherently driven by profit maximization or productivity.

Capitalism and its social relations drove humans to seek maximum profit. It was not human nature that turned wealth into capital, but social property transformations that created the laws of capitalist movement unprecedented in history. In a changing world, competition, profit maximization, and the re-creation of surplus value necessitated constant workforce growth and development. This law of movement was unique to this era. Hence, capitalism was both a historical beginning and a finite process, neither inevitable nor the end of history. Techno-feudalism might have risen from capitalism’s ashes, altering social property relations and redefining humans as social beings. Ultimately, capitalism, like feudalism, could lose its specific laws. So, how did feudalism dissolve? Ellen Meiksins Wood, an American political theorist and historian, explains that feudalism was a specific mode of production where the economy and political authority were closely linked. Unlike capitalism, this system relied on non-economic coercive methods to extract surplus value. Peasants, often near castles for safety and market access, had direct access to land, allowing them to acquire surplus agricultural and craft products through military force. As states expanded, cities grew, and transportation improved, societal control increased. Over time, political pressure on serfdom decreased, with military power centralizing in absolutist states or large kingdoms and empires. For instance, English landowners moved from forcibly extracting surplus to renting land within competitive markets. Enclosures displaced peasants, ending subsistence farming and forcing them into a working-class role where they had to sell their labor to survive.

Illustration depicting the Enclosure Movement and the displacement of peasants from common lands, marking the transition to capitalism.

Now, exploitation shifted from the lord’s sword to the cold, invisible mechanisms of the market. The division between the economic and political spheres brought about changes in social relations. Dispossessed peasants developed a rational market-based economy to survive. Capitalism, emerging within its unique historical context, quickly expanded into a global economy.

“For instance, English landowners moved from forcibly extracting surplus to renting land within competitive markets. Enclosures displaced peasants, ending subsistence farming and forcing them into a workingclass role where they had to sell their labor to survive.”

Immanuel Wallerstein, an American sociologist renowned for his work in historical sociology and developing world-systems theory, argued that feudalism would end just as it had arisen. He theorized that every system is born, runs its natural cycle, and eventually, because of structural contradictions, enters a permanent crisis phase. The modern world-system, which emerged from the crisis of feudalism, is based on a vast network characterized by unequal exchange between the core and peripheral nations. While earlier capitalism overcame stagnation through territorial expansion, it can no longer do so in today’s highly developed global economy, having reached its mathematical limits. Factors such as rising labor costs from declining rural populations, ecological costs from exhausted natural resources, and growing tax burdens on education and healthcare contributed to this stagnation. The crisis became evident as overall profit rates shrank, pushing capitalism toward a breaking point, as Wallerstein noted in The End of the Known World.

The initial response of capital to the prolonged decline in the system’s profit rates was the rise of Neo-liberalism. However, as the bottleneck in production continued, capital shifted toward financial speculation. Instead of expanding through production, capital began to grow through finance. This unsustainable system collapsed during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. To rescue the system, central banks printed trillions of dollars of fiat money. Since there were no profit expectations in finance, this influx directly inflated technology companies’ share prices, enabling significant investment in digital infrastructure.

Economist Yanis Varoufakis describes this phenomenon as the emergence of Techno-Feudalism, which diverges from traditional market mechanisms. He argues that companies funded mainly by unbacked central bank money, which dominate internet platforms, undermine capitalism’s core principles, markets, and profit mechanisms. A new feudal-like parasitic structure has emerged over production, with productive capital now dependent on these platforms.

Historic view of Wall Street illustrating the rise of financial capitalism in 19th-century New York.

Financial capital clusters around them to compete and seek profit or growth. Fiber-optic cables, data centers, and A.I. systems connect the world, making productive capital reliant on these infrastructures.

“Economist Yanis Varoufakis describes this phenomenon as the emergence of Techno-Feudalism, which diverges from traditional market mechanisms. He argues that companies funded mainly by unbacked central bank money, which dominate internet platforms, undermine capitalism’s core principles, markets, and profit mechanisms. A new feudal-like parasitic structure has emerged over production, with productive capital now dependent on these platforms.”

Major corporations like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Apple now control this landscape. Platforms and algorithms dominate consumer markets, dictating choices and prices with near-absolute authority. Consequently, productive investments are reduced to rent-seeking activities, such as feudalism, in which peasants paid a share of their harvest to landowners. Today, producers and programmers often pay 30-40% of their sales as rent to platform owners. Billions of people work as digital serfs to grow cloud capital entirely voluntarily, thinking they are just having fun or socializing without any charge. Every search, share, and like trains these algorithms and provides data about consumer habits. Moreover, this cloud capital uses this data to hold our attention hostage, exploit dopamine cycles, and directly implant desires into minds, trapping them in an algorithmic hegemony. Jodi Dean, an American political scientist, notes that the once-dissolving divide between the economic and political realms of capitalism is now reversing, with the economy gaining political influence.

“Digital network owners are controlling trade, influencing free expression, and even affecting daily life, much like sovereign states. As this shift towards a Great Tech Authoritarianism unfolds, all intelligence and health data are increasingly managed by cloud capital.”

Originally seen as a democratic space, the internet now has the power to heavily influence preferences through algorithms that shape the content which users interact. Digital network owners are controlling trade, influencing free expression, and even affecting daily life, much like sovereign states. As this shift towards a Great Tech Authoritarianism unfolds, all intelligence and health data are increasingly managed by cloud capital. Today, as Wallerstein suggests, the end of the world as we know it is near. Tech-Feudalism hasn’t yet broken the fundamental laws of capitalism. It’s possible that social relations are already changing in ways we’re not noticing.

Big Tech Authoritarianism

“The initial response of capital to the prolonged decline in the system’s profit rates was the rise of Neo-liberalism. However, as the production bottleneck persisted, capital shifted toward financial speculation. Instead of expanding through production, capital began to grow through finance.”

Some studies claim that Neo-Feudalism is a natural phase of capitalism, and a significant number of people are thinking about the end of capitalism. Perhaps solutions to capitalism’s crises lie with major tech companies. Y. Varoufakis, notable for his work in this area, advocates for cyber boycotts and global strikes by mobilizing the cloud, calling on all humanity to join. He believes resistance efforts should be initiated, and the last chance to act should not be missed. We will see how it unfolds.

Before the Fall: What History of Capitalism Reveals About Techno-Feudalism? yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.